Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:44 AM - Re: Pressure Carburetor? (N395V)
2. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 07:21 AM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (Moe - Ross Racing Pistons)
4. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (Steve at Col-East)
6. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (Tylor Hall)
7. 08:28 AM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (Steve at Col-East)
8. 08:37 AM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (yourtcfg@aol.com)
9. 09:13 AM - Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
10. 12:05 PM - Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? (John Vormbaum)
11. 12:19 PM - Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 04:02 PM - Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? (Steve @ Col-East)
13. 04:42 PM - Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? (John Vormbaum)
14. 05:06 PM - Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 07:08 PM - Taildraggers (yourtcfg@aol.com)
16. 07:25 PM - Re: Taildraggers (BobsV35B@aol.com)
17. 09:08 PM - Re: Taildraggers (Bill Bow)
18. 09:18 PM - Re: Taildraggers (James T. Addington)
19. 09:27 PM - Re: Taildraggers (Robert S. Randazzo)
20. 09:34 PM - Re: Taildraggers (Bill Bow)
21. 09:42 PM - Re: Taildraggers (Robert S. Randazzo)
22. 10:09 PM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (Don)
23. 10:35 PM - Re: Re: Pressure Carburetor? (Don)
24. 11:34 PM - Re: 2007 TCFG Fky-In (Richard & Jacqui Thompson)
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: Pressure Carburetor? |
> which with about $ 5 will get you a cup of coffee at most Starbucks.
Heck Don,
I'll pay you $5 and feed you starbucks all day if you'll tell me Connie stories.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137578#137578
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: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does reflect on
reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand a bit about my
background and why it is that I am able to recall some of those details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I started as a
DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid expansion and by early
1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and had gotten fairly senior in
that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies were vying for the title of Queen of
the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go faster and
carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in and out of
slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading edge of
technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet engine would
never
work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had ended my
very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate. That gave me e
a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be qualified in
the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used those fabulous new
Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine was enough different that
we had several days of specialty training given by Curtiss Wright engineers
before we even went to type specific training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a DC-6
type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training for the
transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital Airlines, the
Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given three bounces and turned
loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the mechanic ranks,
but had decided to start using pilots for that function. While I was way too
senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight Engineer, my mechanic background
made me decide that I should get the rating as a matter of professional
qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight engineers
back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self study. That meant
getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study regime,
passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take the flight
test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight checks to student
engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when all of the regular engineer
trainees had finished their flight checks, I was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all that new
information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it was not
only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power, but why it was
imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine books I had been
studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even started to experiment with lean
side operations in my 1947, PS5c equipped, Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of operating
piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has proven to be
very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a civilian
A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and irrelevant
details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot Seminars, I
eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that everything they taught
dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty years earlier and they explained
a
lot of the technology that I had not previously fully understood. I am sure
I have a lot more to learn, but one of the main things I HAVE learned is
that the theories of engine combustion and mixture control have been well known
and agreed to since well before Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing simplified
methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and climbing
out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have changed. But your
procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all this stuff? My hard drive
gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I tried to forget it so I could remember
the new aircraft and not get them confused.
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: Pressure Carburetor? |
Bob,
Thank you very much for a post which explains rich and lean very well. This
is the most literate thing that I have read in quite some time on the
subject.
Best regards,
Moe
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Evening Don,
I have never heard that particular number and I believe we would have to
better define the terms before we could either disagree or agree with that
25% assertion.
As to where does leaning cause additional wear, that is another tough one.
Running any engine too lean at high powers will cause big troubles. However
running one leaner than optimum at low powers will not hurt it all, but it
will burn more fuel per horsepower developed than is possible when the
engine is run so as to attain optimum BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel
Consumption).
I do not know the number used by your airline to lean the Turbo Compound
R-3350, but most users utilized a ten percent BMEP drop from the peak BMEP.
The procedure used by my airline was as follows. We would first chose a
desired BMEP number from the power charts. Just for kicks, let's say that
the desired cruise BMEP was 254. We would start out with the mixture in Auto
Rich. The mixture would be slowly leaned until the BMEP started to rise.
When it went above 254, we would throttle back until it was at 254, then
continue to lean until it was steady at 254 and where any further leaning
would take the BMEP reading below 254. That procedure determined the peak
BMEP (Peak power) for the manifold pressure being used. At that time, we
would continue leaning the engine until the BMEP was reading 254 minus 24.5
or approximately 228 BMEP. Once that spot ten percent leaner than peak power
was found, the throttle was used to add manifold pressure so as to bring the
BMEP back to the desired cruise power. We then checked the manifold pressure
to be sure we were still below the maximum allowed manifold pressure for the
desired cruise power.
Sound familiar?
If we leaned the engine further, it would just lose power, but no harm was
done. However, if we richened it up a bit, the engine would overheat and it
may even go into mild detonation. It needed to be well lean of peak power to
cool properly.
I don't know if you recall, but there is a shaft on the rear of the engine
which connects the two fuel injection controllers together. One unit is for
the front row and the other feeds the rear. That shaft would occasionally
slip. When that happened, one row would be running substantially leaner than
the other. The one that was getting more fuel would be carrying more of the
load that was being developed by the engine. That row would burn the valves
and sometimes even have holes burned in the pistons while the row which was
not getting enough fuel would be running clean and comfortable.
The place where any engine is most likely to develop engine problems are
when the mixture is at that point where the peak BMEP or peak engine power
is being developed. If the engine is run at that same power with a richer
than needed fuel mixture, the extra fuel will slow down the rate of burn and
move the point of peak combustion pressure to a point where the engine is
able to operate relatively cool.
That function is what is normally referred to as cooling the engine with
fuel and it is how we kept our cool during takeoff and climb regimes!
Another way to cool the engine is to cool it with additional combustion air.
That is what happens when the engine is run well lean of best power. (Note
that I said best power, not Peak EGT. They do NOT occur at the same point)
When we leaned that nice big R-3350 ten percent lean of best power, we were
running at a mixture that was well lean of the best power point and the
engine was being cooled by that surplus combustion air.
Normal cruise power for the 3350 was around 55 to 60 percent of rated power.
We were really running it quite conservatively. If we richened it without
reducing the manifold pressure, we defeated the air cooling effect and it
would overheat and cause all sorts of problems.
Leaner is cleaner and leaner is cooler. Cleaner and cooler is generally
considered to be better, is it not?
So, if you want to extend engine life, run it at relatively low power
settings and run the mixture on the lean side of best power!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
Bob;
I used to sit sideways in a Connie running R-3360 Turbo compound engines,
but its been a long time.
My question is this, since you remember more about those things, I recall
being told some where that aircraft engines use approximately 25% of their
fuel for cooling. At what point in leaning do we get to where we save fuel,
but shorten the engine life? And where is the crossover point.
Thanks, Don
_____
See what's new at Make AOL Your Homepage.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
In a message dated 10/2/2007 9:22:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
moe@rosspistons.com writes:
Bob,
Thank you very much for a post which explains rich and lean very well. This
is the most literate thing that I have read in quite some time on the
subject.
Best regards,
Moe
N680RR
680F(p)
Thank you very kindly Moe,
Knowing your background, that is especially heartwarming.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Glad to have all the conversation on the list. Good stuff......
I've mentioned before that we've been running LOP for a number of years.
We finally pulled the right engine last month, 450 or so hours past TBO,
after finding some slivers in the oil filter. A couple of the lobes that
pull double duty had spalled followers that had begun to nibble at the
cam.
The right jugs were still reading 80/80 at 1900 something hours when we
pulled the engine.
I know comparing the pressure carb to running an injection system, with
GAMI injectors, is a little of an apples to oranges comparison, but if
you're able to run LOP, we're satisfied it's beneficial to the engine.
at the normal power settings we run. At 75% we're running it on the rich
side.
Still, there's too many variables for this to be a good experiment, and
it is an anecdotal report. For example, the jugs are never allowed to
get real hot, and this must have some to do with the good service we're
getting.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does reflect
on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand a bit
about my background and why it is that I am able to recall some of those
details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I started
as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid expansion
and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and had gotten
fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies were vying
for the title of Queen of the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go faster
and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in and
out of slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading edge
of technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate.
That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine
was enough different that we had several days of specialty training
given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to type specific
training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a
DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training for
the transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital Airlines,
the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given three bounces
and turned loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the mechanic
ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that function. While I
was way too senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight Engineer, my
mechanic background made me decide that I should get the rating as a
matter of professional qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight
engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self
study. That meant getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take
the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight
checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when
all of the regular engineer trainees had finished their flight checks, I
was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all that
new information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it was
not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power, but
why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine books I
had been studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even started to
experiment with lean side operations in my 1947, PS5c equipped,
Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has
proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a
civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
irrelevant details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot Seminars,
I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that everything
they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty years earlier
and they explained a lot of the technology that I had not previously
fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more to learn, but one of the
main things I HAVE learned is that the theories of engine combustion and
mixture control have been well known and agreed to since well before
Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing simplified
methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and
climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have changed.
But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all this stuff?
My hard drive gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I tried to forget
it so I could remember the new aircraft and not get them confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
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: Pressure Carburetor? |
Team,
If we are going to OK next year, we should see about taking a tour of
the GAMI plant at Ada, OK and see an engine running on their test
stand. I have seen it and it is very educational.
Steve,
Which engine are you running?
Tylor Hall
On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Steve at Col-East wrote:
> Glad to have all the conversation on the list. Good stuff......
>
> I've mentioned before that we've been running LOP for a number of
> years.
>
> We finally pulled the right engine last month, 450 or so hours past
> TBO, after finding some slivers in the oil filter. A couple of the
> lobes that pull double duty had spalled followers that had begun to
> nibble at the cam.
>
> The right jugs were still reading 80/80 at 1900 something hours
> when we pulled the engine.
>
> I know comparing the pressure carb to running an injection system,
> with GAMI injectors, is a little of an apples to oranges
> comparison, but if you're able to run LOP, we're satisfied it's
> beneficial to the engine. at the normal power settings we run. At
> 75% we're running it on the rich side.
>
> Still, there's too many variables for this to be a good experiment,
> and it is an anecdotal report. For example, the jugs are never
> allowed to get real hot, and this must have some to do with the
> good service we're getting.
>
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BobsV35B@aol.com
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
>
> Good Morning Don,
>
> I should be taking this response off list, but since it does
> reflect on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will
> expand a bit about my background and why it is that I am able to
> recall some of those details!
>
> It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I
> started as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very
> rapid expansion and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6
> copilot and had gotten fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the
> early Connies were vying for the title of Queen of the airways.
>
> The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go
> faster and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could
> get in and out of slightly smaller airports.
>
> They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading
> edge of technology.
>
> Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
> knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
> engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
>
> I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
> ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians
> Mate. That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
>
> In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
> qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
> those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that
> engine was enough different that we had several days of specialty
> training given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to
> type specific training for the airplane.
>
> Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a
> DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training
> for the transition.
>
> Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital
> Airlines, the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given
> three bounces and turned loose with the airplane.
>
> Back to 1952!
>
> My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the
> mechanic ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that
> function. While I was way too senior to ever be required to fly as
> a Flight Engineer, my mechanic background made me decide that I
> should get the rating as a matter of professional qualification.
>
> Since the only training courses that were available for flight
> engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to
> self study. That meant getting the books from the library and
> studying!
>
> By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
> regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me
> take the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give
> flight checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as
> copilot, and when all of the regular engineer trainees had finished
> their flight checks, I was allowed to complete mine.
>
> When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all
> that new information.
>
> After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it
> was not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best
> power, but why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to
> those engine books I had been studying to firm that thought in my
> mind. I even started to experiment with lean side operations in my
> 1947, PS5c equipped, Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
>
> It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
> operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7
> school has proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater
> knowledge.
>
> It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a
> civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
>
> That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
> irrelevant details.
>
> When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot
> Seminars, I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that
> everything they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from
> fifty years earlier and they explained a lot of the technology that
> I had not previously fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more
> to learn, but one of the main things I HAVE learned is that the
> theories of engine combustion and mixture control have been well
> known and agreed to since well before Lindbergh's time.
>
> The major problem with mixture control has been developing
> simplified methods of applying that knowledge!
>
> All that make any sense at all?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
> I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and
> climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have
> changed. But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember
> all this stuff? My hard drive gets full, and when I left an
> aircraft, I tried to forget it so I could remember the new aircraft
> and not get them confused.
>
>
> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://
> forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
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: Pressure Carburetor? |
Tylor,
We're running just straight IO-540's, narrow deck.
If a trip to GAMI was included, we'd probably try to make it. How about
a seminar for the Commander bunch?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Tylor Hall
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Team,
If we are going to OK next year, we should see about taking a tour of
the GAMI plant at Ada, OK and see an engine running on their test stand.
I have seen it and it is very educational.
Steve,
Which engine are you running?
Tylor Hall
On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Steve at Col-East wrote:
Glad to have all the conversation on the list. Good stuff......
I've mentioned before that we've been running LOP for a number of
years.
We finally pulled the right engine last month, 450 or so hours past
TBO, after finding some slivers in the oil filter. A couple of the lobes
that pull double duty had spalled followers that had begun to nibble at
the cam.
The right jugs were still reading 80/80 at 1900 something hours when
we pulled the engine.
I know comparing the pressure carb to running an injection system,
with GAMI injectors, is a little of an apples to oranges comparison, but
if you're able to run LOP, we're satisfied it's beneficial to the
engine. at the normal power settings we run. At 75% we're running it on
the rich side.
Still, there's too many variables for this to be a good experiment,
and it is an anecdotal report. For example, the jugs are never allowed
to get real hot, and this must have some to do with the good service
we're getting.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does
reflect on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand
a bit about my background and why it is that I am able to recall some of
those details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I
started as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid
expansion and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and
had gotten fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies
were vying for the title of Queen of the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go
faster and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in
and out of slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading
edge of technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate.
That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine
was enough different that we had several days of specialty training
given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to type specific
training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had
a DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training
for the transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital
Airlines, the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given
three bounces and turned loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the
mechanic ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that function.
While I was way too senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight
Engineer, my mechanic background made me decide that I should get the
rating as a matter of professional qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight
engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self
study. That meant getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take
the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight
checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when
all of the regular engineer trainees had finished their flight checks, I
was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all
that new information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it
was not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power,
but why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine
books I had been studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even
started to experiment with lean side operations in my 1947, PS5c
equipped, Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has
proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for
a civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
irrelevant details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot
Seminars, I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that
everything they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty
years earlier and they explained a lot of the technology that I had not
previously fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more to learn, but
one of the main things I HAVE learned is that the theories of engine
combustion and mixture control have been well known and agreed to since
well before Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing
simplified methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel
and climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have
changed. But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all
this stuff? My hard drive gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I
tried to forget it so I could remember the new aircraft and not get them
confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">h
ttp://forums.matronics.com - The Commander-List Email -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List - NEW
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-space"> -->
http://forums.matronics.com
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: Pressure Carburetor? |
Great explanation, thanks.? jb
-----Original Message-----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:27 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Evening Don,?
?
I have never heard that particular number and I believe we would have to better
define the terms before we could either disagree or agree with that 25% assertion.
?
As to where does leaning cause additional wear, that is another tough one.
?
Running any engine too lean at high powers will cause big troubles.? However running
one leaner than optimum at low powers will not hurt it all, but it will
burn more fuel per horsepower developed than is possible when the engine is run
so as to attain optimum BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption).
?
I do not know the number used by your airline to lean the Turbo Compound R-3350,
but most users utilized a ten percent BMEP drop from the peak BMEP.
?
The procedure used by my airline was as follows. We would first chose a desired
BMEP number from the power charts. Just for kicks, let's say that the desired
cruise BMEP was 254. We would start out with the mixture in Auto Rich. The mixture
would be slowly leaned until the BMEP started to rise. When it went above
254, we would throttle back until it was at 254, then continue to lean until
it was steady at 254 and where any further leaning would take the BMEP reading
below 254. That procedure determined the peak BMEP (Peak power) for the manifold
pressure being used.? At that time, we would continue leaning the engine
until the BMEP was reading 254 minus 24.5 or approximately 228 BMEP. Once that
spot ten percent leaner than peak power was found, the throttle was used to add
manifold pressure so as to bring the BMEP back to the desired cruise power.?We
then checked the manifold pressure to be sure we were still below the maximum
allowed manifold pressure for the desired cruise
power.
?
Sound familiar?
?
If we leaned the engine further, it would just lose power, but no harm was done.
However, if we richened it up a bit, the engine would overheat and it may even
go into mild detonation. It needed to be well lean of peak power to cool properly.
?
I don't know if you recall, but there is a shaft on the rear of the engine which
connects the two fuel injection controllers together. One unit is for the front
row and the other feeds the rear. That shaft would occasionally slip. When
that happened, one row would be running substantially leaner than the other.
The one that was getting more fuel would be carrying more of the load that was
being developed by the engine.? That row would burn the valves and sometimes
even have holes burned in the pistons while the row which was not getting enough
fuel would be running clean and comfortable.
?
The place where any engine is most likely to develop engine problems are when the
mixture is at that point where the peak BMEP or peak engine power is being
developed. If the engine is run at that same power with a richer than needed fuel
mixture, the extra fuel will slow down the rate of burn and move the point
of peak combustion pressure to a point where the engine is able to operate relatively
cool.
?
That function is what is normally referred to as cooling the engine with fuel and
it is how we kept our cool during takeoff and climb regimes!
?
Another way to cool the engine is to cool it with additional combustion air. That
is what happens when the engine is run well lean of best power. (Note that
I said best power, not Peak EGT. They do NOT occur at the same point) When we
leaned that nice big R-3350 ten percent lean of best power, we were running at
a mixture that was well lean of the best power point and the engine was being
cooled by that surplus combustion air.
?
Normal cruise power for the 3350 was around 55 to 60 percent of rated power. We
were really running it quite conservatively. If we richened it without reducing
the manifold pressure, we defeated the air cooling effect and it would overheat
and cause all sorts of problems.
?
Leaner is cleaner and leaner is cooler.?Cleaner and cooler is generally considered
to be better, is it not?
?
So, if you want to extend engine life, run it at relatively low power settings
and run?the mixture?on the lean side of best power!
?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
?
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dongirod@bellsouth.net
writes:
Bob;
?
I used to sit sideways in a Connie running R-3360 Turbo compound engines, but its
been a long time.?
?
My question is this, since you remember more about those things, I recall being
told some where that aircraft engines use approximately 25% of their fuel for
cooling.? At what point in leaning do we get to where we save fuel, but shorten
the engine life?? And where is the crossover point.
?
Thanks, Don
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
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: | Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Once More Don,
You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather sluffed over
that point.
This may not directly address your specific question, but one possible
consideration might be the points made by Continental and Lycoming.
Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when using less
than 75 percent power.
Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT unless we
are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures are a bit tough to pin
down and both manufacturers have conflicting advice in various publications,
but it is a good starting point.
Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of their
engines.
While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of peak EGT
(Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of our aircraft
engines will be destroyed if we try it.
So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
sixty-five percent power?
At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do any
damage to the engine via the mixture control!
Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high power than
are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise powers.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
And where is the crossover point.
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: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Bob,
IIRC from John Deakin's articles, there is only a very narrow range of
EGT that can cause damage to any engine at any power setting, right? I
took Deakin's writings to heart a few years ago, and with the
installation of a JPI engine monitor in my Commander, I run LOP in
pretty much all phases of flight except climbout. At cruise, since I'm
turbocharged, I can run at 75% power up high and run LOP while at that
power setting. I have one engine that is a bit past TBO and one that is
about 1/2 way to TBO. Both engines run very well LOP. Both engines run
very cool. I'm always in a hurry, so I don't care too much about saving
fuel, but now, LOP, I'm saving avgas too.
I remember that the "big mixture pull" upon reaching cruise altitude is
something that should be done rather quickly to get past the potential
high cyl pressure/detonation point, but other than that, there's not
much to worry about.
I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree with
Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!" as I
think I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've only
changed a cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year. I don't
think an engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool . Whether
cooled by air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter. Also, when LOP,
the peak cylinder pressure point happens later in the cycle, putting far
less pressure on pistons etc.
I've had my 500B since 1999. Prior to the JPI, I would do the "lean it
til it gets rough, then push forward a skosh on the red levers" and that
worked fine. In fact, once I got my JPI in, it confirmed that that
strategy results in LOP operation, so it looks like I've been running
LOP for the whole time I've had the airplane. I also used to lean til
rough, push a tad forward, and then shut off a mag. If it ran fine on
both mags but rough on one (with rpm drop), I could pretty much assume I
was running it as lean as possible for that power setting.
Also, I'm fuel injected, so I think I can count on more consistency with
fuel distribution than most carbureted engines.
Cheers,
/John
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Once More Don,
>
> You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather sluffed
> over that point.
>
> This may not directly address your specific question, but one possible
> consideration might be the points made by Continental and Lycoming.
>
> Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when using
> less than 75 percent power.
>
> Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT unless
> we are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures are a bit
> tough to pin down and both manufacturers have conflicting advice in
> various publications, but it is a good starting point.
>
> Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of
> their engines.
>
> While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of
> peak EGT (Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of
> our aircraft engines will be destroyed if we try it.
>
> So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
> sixty-five percent power?
>
> At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do
> any damage to the engine via the mixture control!
>
> Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high power
> than are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise powers.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> And where is the crossover point.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
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: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Afternoon John,
It seems you have done broke de code!!<G>
The turbo-charger (or many other superchargers for that matter) does allow
operation at quite high powers when lean of peak.
The key is a thorough understanding of the combustion process combined with
a method to evaluate the efficacy of the method chosen to attain the desired
state.
Glad you found the truth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 2:06:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
john@vormbaum.com writes:
I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree with
Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!" as I
think I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've only
changed a cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year. I don't
think an engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool . Whether
cooled by air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter. Also, when LOP,
the peak cylinder pressure point happens later in the cycle, putting far
less pressure on pistons etc.
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 |
|
| From: | "Steve @ Col-East" <steve2@sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
John,
I've found pretty quickly I've lost a mag when I feel some roughness and all
of a sudden see a spike in EGT/CHT. Sure enough, I'll switch between mags
and find a dead one. Interesting coming home with one engine lean, and one
engine rich. Both have similar EGT/CHT, but one is swilling fuel, and one
isn't........
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
Carburetor?
>
> Bob,
>
> IIRC from John Deakin's articles, there is only a very narrow range of EGT
> that can cause damage to any engine at any power setting, right? I took
> Deakin's writings to heart a few years ago, and with the installation of a
> JPI engine monitor in my Commander, I run LOP in pretty much all phases of
> flight except climbout. At cruise, since I'm turbocharged, I can run at
> 75% power up high and run LOP while at that power setting. I have one
> engine that is a bit past TBO and one that is about 1/2 way to TBO. Both
> engines run very well LOP. Both engines run very cool. I'm always in a
> hurry, so I don't care too much about saving fuel, but now, LOP, I'm
> saving avgas too.
>
> I remember that the "big mixture pull" upon reaching cruise altitude is
> something that should be done rather quickly to get past the potential
> high cyl pressure/detonation point, but other than that, there's not much
> to worry about.
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
> experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree with
> Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!" as I think
> I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've only changed a
> cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year. I don't think an
> engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool . Whether cooled by
> air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter. Also, when LOP, the peak
> cylinder pressure point happens later in the cycle, putting far less
> pressure on pistons etc.
>
> I've had my 500B since 1999. Prior to the JPI, I would do the "lean it til
> it gets rough, then push forward a skosh on the red levers" and that
> worked fine. In fact, once I got my JPI in, it confirmed that that
> strategy results in LOP operation, so it looks like I've been running LOP
> for the whole time I've had the airplane. I also used to lean til rough,
> push a tad forward, and then shut off a mag. If it ran fine on both mags
> but rough on one (with rpm drop), I could pretty much assume I was running
> it as lean as possible for that power setting.
>
> Also, I'm fuel injected, so I think I can count on more consistency with
> fuel distribution than most carbureted engines.
>
> Cheers,
>
> /John
>
> BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>> Good Morning Once More Don,
>> You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather sluffed
>> over that point. This may not directly address your specific question,
>> but one possible consideration might be the points made by Continental
>> and Lycoming.
>> Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when using
>> less than 75 percent power.
>> Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT unless
>> we are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures are a bit
>> tough to pin down and both manufacturers have conflicting advice in
>> various publications, but it is a good starting point.
>> Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of
>> their engines.
>> While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of peak
>> EGT (Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of our
>> aircraft engines will be destroyed if we try it.
>> So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
>> sixty-five percent power?
>> At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do any
>> damage to the engine via the mixture control!
>> Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high power
>> than are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise powers.
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>> AKA
>> Bob Siegfried
>> Ancient Aviator
>> Stearman N3977A
>> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>> 630 985-8503
>> In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
>>
>> And where is the crossover point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>>
>
>
>
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: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
I never thought about the diagnostic bonus (for bad mags) of running the
engines where I do, but that sounds like a handy fringe benefit!
/J
Steve @ Col-East wrote:
> <steve2@sover.net>
>
> John,
>
> I've found pretty quickly I've lost a mag when I feel some roughness
> and all of a sudden see a spike in EGT/CHT. Sure enough, I'll switch
> between mags and find a dead one. Interesting coming home with one
> engine lean, and one engine rich. Both have similar EGT/CHT, but one
> is swilling fuel, and one isn't........
>
> Steve
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
> Carburetor?
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> IIRC from John Deakin's articles, there is only a very narrow range
>> of EGT that can cause damage to any engine at any power setting,
>> right? I took Deakin's writings to heart a few years ago, and with
>> the installation of a JPI engine monitor in my Commander, I run LOP
>> in pretty much all phases of flight except climbout. At cruise, since
>> I'm turbocharged, I can run at 75% power up high and run LOP while at
>> that power setting. I have one engine that is a bit past TBO and one
>> that is about 1/2 way to TBO. Both engines run very well LOP. Both
>> engines run very cool. I'm always in a hurry, so I don't care too
>> much about saving fuel, but now, LOP, I'm saving avgas too.
>>
>> I remember that the "big mixture pull" upon reaching cruise altitude
>> is something that should be done rather quickly to get past the
>> potential high cyl pressure/detonation point, but other than that,
>> there's not much to worry about.
>>
>> I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
>> experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree
>> with Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!"
>> as I think I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've
>> only changed a cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year.
>> I don't think an engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool
>> . Whether cooled by air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter.
>> Also, when LOP, the peak cylinder pressure point happens later in the
>> cycle, putting far less pressure on pistons etc.
>>
>> I've had my 500B since 1999. Prior to the JPI, I would do the "lean
>> it til it gets rough, then push forward a skosh on the red levers"
>> and that worked fine. In fact, once I got my JPI in, it confirmed
>> that that strategy results in LOP operation, so it looks like I've
>> been running LOP for the whole time I've had the airplane. I also
>> used to lean til rough, push a tad forward, and then shut off a mag.
>> If it ran fine on both mags but rough on one (with rpm drop), I could
>> pretty much assume I was running it as lean as possible for that
>> power setting.
>>
>> Also, I'm fuel injected, so I think I can count on more consistency
>> with fuel distribution than most carbureted engines.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> /John
>>
>> BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>>> Good Morning Once More Don,
>>> You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather
>>> sluffed over that point. This may not directly address your specific
>>> question, but one possible consideration might be the points made by
>>> Continental and Lycoming.
>>> Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when
>>> using less than 75 percent power.
>>> Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT
>>> unless we are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures
>>> are a bit tough to pin down and both manufacturers have conflicting
>>> advice in various publications, but it is a good starting point.
>>> Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of
>>> their engines.
>>> While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of
>>> peak EGT (Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of
>>> our aircraft engines will be destroyed if we try it.
>>> So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
>>> sixty-five percent power?
>>> At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do
>>> any damage to the engine via the mixture control!
>>> Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high
>>> power than are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise
>>> powers.
>>> Happy Skies,
>>>
>>> Old Bob
>>> AKA
>>> Bob Siegfried
>>> Ancient Aviator
>>> Stearman N3977A
>>> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>>> 630 985-8503
>>> In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>> dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
>>>
>>> And where is the crossover point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
>
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: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Evening Steve,
Just out of curiosity, what was the occasion that had you operating one
engine on the lean side and the other one on the rich side!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 6:03:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
steve2@sover.net writes:
I've found pretty quickly I've lost a mag when I feel some roughness and all
of a sudden see a spike in EGT/CHT. Sure enough, I'll switch between mags
and find a dead one. Interesting coming home with one engine lean, and one
engine rich. Both have similar EGT/CHT, but one is swilling fuel, and one
isn't........
Steve
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 |
|
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a taildragger.?
Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
?
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
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: Taildraggers |
In a message dated 10/2/2007 9:09:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
yourtcfg@aol.com writes:
Taildragger Taildragger
Good Evening JB,
That is a very fine rendition of tailwheel checkout problems. However, it
does emphasize one of the problems that pilots are experiencing when
transitioning from tri-gear to conventional gear aircraft.
All that the author discusses is the use of rudder to keep the airplane on
the desired course.
There is not even one suggestion about the steering force that can be used
via the advantageous use of adverse yaw generated by the old fashioned aileron
which is used for roll control on most older flying machines.
In the thirties and early forties, that was well understood and thoroughly
taught, but very few pilots other than some fortunate sea plane pilots and a
few very fortunate glider pilots are ever taught how effective the adverse yaw
can be in keeping the airplane on the straight and narrow.
On some aircraft, specifically the Twin Beech, the use of proper aileron is
much more effective and of much greater importance than the use of rudder.
Another one of those ancient truths that have been designed out of modern
airplanes. Nothing wrong with what the designers have done, but when we fly that
ancient equipment, it behooves us to know, understand, and use the ancient
techniques!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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 |
|
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
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 |
|
BB, is that one of those airplanes with a training wheel in the back? HeHeHe
Jim
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
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 |
|
Old Bob-
I'll drink to that!
Learning to fly the T-6 made me a better airline pilot. Also improved my
landings..
Some of the old equipment might not be as "sexy" as all the new stuff(to the
uninitiated) but it sure is more fun!
Robert Randazzo
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Taildraggers
In a message dated 10/2/2007 9:09:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
yourtcfg@aol.com writes:
Taildragger Taildragger
Good Evening JB,
That is a very fine rendition of tailwheel checkout problems. However, it
does emphasize one of the problems that pilots are experiencing when
transitioning from tri-gear to conventional gear aircraft.
All that the author discusses is the use of rudder to keep the airplane on
the desired course.
There is not even one suggestion about the steering force that can be used
via the advantageous use of adverse yaw generated by the old fashioned
aileron which is used for roll control on most older flying machines.
In the thirties and early forties, that was well understood and thoroughly
taught, but very few pilots other than some fortunate sea plane pilots and a
few very fortunate glider pilots are ever taught how effective the adverse
yaw can be in keeping the airplane on the straight and narrow.
On some aircraft, specifically the Twin Beech, the use of proper aileron is
much more effective and of much greater importance than the use of rudder.
Another one of those ancient truths that have been designed out of modern
airplanes. Nothing wrong with what the designers have done, but when we fly
that ancient equipment, it behooves us to know, understand, and use the
ancient techniques!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
_____
See what'set="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
__________ NOD32 2567 (20071002) Information __________
Message 20
| 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 |
|
No they are in the middle.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James T.
Addington
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
BB, is that one of those airplanes with a training wheel in the back? HeHeHe
Jim
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
Message 21
| 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 |
|
Hey Bill,
Now what airline is it that saw fit to turn over their prized quinticycle to
you?
Robert Randazzo
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
__________ NOD32 2567 (20071002) Information __________
Message 22
| 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: Pressure Carburetor? |
Thanks, Milt.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" <airboss@excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:43 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
<airboss@excaliburaviation.com>
>
>
> > which with about $ 5 will get you a cup of coffee at most Starbucks.
>
>
> Heck Don,
>
> I'll pay you $5 and feed you starbucks all day if you'll tell me Connie
stories.
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137578#137578
>
>
> --
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
>
Message 23
| 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: Pressure Carburetor? |
Thanks, Bob.
Not to start an argument with anyone, but my experience with most things
mechanical is, "If you are willing to work at it, sometimes pretty hard,
you can do a better job doing it manually than with something automatic"
There are exceptions of course like the new A/P used in CAT III
landings, but then it takes 3 A/P's to do the job correctly with lots of
redundancy. But the automatic procedures sure makes it easier for the
ones that don't need or care to work that hard, and they do a good job.
I have never understood all the negative talk about 'geared engines', I
flew two seats on the Electra and do remember that there are seventeen
systems to prevent Negative Torque (NTSing) with the prop running the
engine, so a geared engine was never a big deal for me.
Thanks for sharing your experiences and how you got them. And I second
the comment about how we may have different views but we all stay
'civil', very few things that can only be done one way. That is why I
feel most people on the list enjoy it, lots of very valuable experience.
As for the tail dragger comments, I am grandfathered, I have a rating in
a DC-3, but sure would hate to try and fly one now.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does reflect
on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand a bit
about my background and why it is that I am able to recall some of those
details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I started
as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid expansion
and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and had gotten
fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies were vying
for the title of Queen of the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go faster
and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in and
out of slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading edge
of technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate.
That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine
was enough different that we had several days of specialty training
given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to type specific
training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a
DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training for
the transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital Airlines,
the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given three bounces
and turned loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the mechanic
ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that function. While I
was way too senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight Engineer, my
mechanic background made me decide that I should get the rating as a
matter of professional qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight
engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self
study. That meant getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take
the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight
checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when
all of the regular engineer trainees had finished their flight checks, I
was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all that
new information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it was
not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power, but
why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine books I
had been studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even started to
experiment with lean side operations in my 1947, PS5c equipped,
Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has
proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a
civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
irrelevant details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot Seminars,
I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that everything
they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty years earlier
and they explained a lot of the technology that I had not previously
fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more to learn, but one of the
main things I HAVE learned is that the theories of engine combustion and
mixture control have been well known and agreed to since well before
Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing simplified
methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod@bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and
climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have changed.
But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all this stuff?
My hard drive gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I tried to forget
it so I could remember the new aircraft and not get them confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
Message 24
| 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: | 2007 TCFG Fky-In |
Greetings all,
Just got back to a hot and windy Sydney. Once again a great Fly-in. It was
wonderful seeing you all again. Both Jacqui and I really enjoyed it. Pity
some of you missed it. John your excuse is acceptable, well done. Take heed
of Captain Dan's warning about planning. We missed you. Some great new
people showed up and had a ball, hopefully we will be seeing them in the
future. Once again Jim & Sue did a great job. The standards of aircraft
management on the ground were exceptional. So much so that the GOLDEN PEDAL
AWARD was not awarded for sins committed at T82 but for sins committed at
Canyonland Airport, Moab, Utah, a little way to the NNW. It now sits proudly
in my lounge.
Cheers All.
See you next year.
Richard (custodian of the GOLDEN PEDAL)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
andrew.bridget@telus.net
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2007 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 2007 TCFG Fky-In
Congratulations, 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! --
|