Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:06 PM - Flying "On the Step" (Andrew & Bridget Watson)
2. 08:31 PM - Re: Pressure regulator (Donald Falik)
3. 09:05 PM - Re: Pressure regulator (Ray Mansfield)
4. 09:36 PM - Re: Flying "On the Step" (John Vormbaum)
5. 09:40 PM - Our Facebook Page (cybersuperstore)
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: | Flying "On the Step" |
Hello everybody,
I read the earlier emails--some questions on "Flying on the Step".
Out on the Internet there appears to be violent disagreement on whether
such a thing exists or not. Note: I'm not trying to brew up a storm,
just trying to understand.
My father taught me there was such a thing. I believed and still believe
there is; that flying on the step is not a myth. The way I rationalised
it then is as below, I appreciate folks setting me straight, either
on-list or off-list.
1.. There are 4 forces that act upon an aircraft:
1.. Thrust, which is directly forward
2.. Drag, which is directly rearward
3.. Weight, which is vertical down
4.. Lift, which is perpendicular to the aircraft wings, 'upward".
2.. As speed increases, so does lift.
3.. If the aircraft is in a nose down attitude, speed will increase
because:
1.. it is in a shallow dive
2.. lift, being perpendicular to the wings, will be assisting in
drawing the aircraft forward
4.. Altitude "lost" in the nose down attitude will be compensated by
the increased lift associated with the increased speed.
Is this simple logic valid or should I go and hide my head in shame
somewhere? <grin>
Thanks all in advance for your help in my understanding of this.
Andrew
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 regulator |
Good luck on the presure regulator.=C2-=C2- I needed one for my 500S a
couple years =0Aago.=C2- They are out of production and only one company
refurbishes them.=C2- I found =0Aone at Eagle Creek in Indianapolis.=C2
- It was $5,000.00+ =C2-plus a $2500.00 core =0Acharge in case yours is
not refurbishable.=C2- Then they charged an additional 3% =0Afee on the
total when I used my credit card.=0A=0AThe rebuild has to be done by an exc
lusive company due to some special brass =0A"seats".=C2- The fun never en
ds in aviation.=0A=0ADon=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AF
rom: Ray Mansfield <hcourier@cox.net>=0ATo: Commander List <commander-list@
matronics.com>=0ASent: Sun, August 21, 2011 7:04:48 PM=0ASubject: Commander
-List: Pressure regulator=0A=0A=0ATwo items:=0A=0A1 =93 Need to find
out where the hydraulic pressure regulator is located in an =0AAC680 FLP Mr
RPM Conversion.=C2- It=99s not in the same place as prior to the M
R RPM =0AConversion, and am not sure otherewise.=C2- We thought it was pa
rt of the=C2-=C2- =0A=0A=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- hydraulic accumu
lator, but that appears not to be the case.=C2- =0A=0A2.=C2- Does anyon
e have a pressure regulator for this airplane?=C2-=C2- What about =0Are
building such an item.=C2- =0A=0A=0AThe plane has not flown in a year, an
d owner is interested in getting it back in =0Athe air.=C2- The hydraulic
pressure regulator needs attention we think, as when the =0Aplane last fle
w there was a spike in hyd pressure at one point.=C2- The engines =0Ahave
been run every month on the ground but the plane has not acutally flown.
==================== =0A
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 regulator |
Hi Don,
Wow...that doesn=99t sound good. I=99ve just recently found
out where the part is located but we haven=99t made any inquiries
about getting it check as of now. Thanks for the email.
Ray M.
From: Donald Falik
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Pressure regulator
Good luck on the presure regulator. I needed one for my 500S a couple
years ago. They are out of production and only one company refurbishes
them. I found one at Eagle Creek in Indianapolis. It was $5,000.00+
plus a $2500.00 core charge in case yours is not refurbishable. Then
they charged an additional 3% fee on the total when I used my credit
card.
The rebuild has to be done by an exclusive company due to some special
brass "seats". The fun never ends in aviation.
Don
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
From: Ray Mansfield <hcourier@cox.net>
Sent: Sun, August 21, 2011 7:04:48 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Pressure regulator
Two items:
1 =93 Need to find out where the hydraulic pressure regulator is
located in an AC680 FLP Mr RPM Conversion. It=99s not in the same
place as prior to the MR RPM Conversion, and am not sure otherewise. We
thought it was part of the
hydraulic accumulator, but that appears not to be the case.
2. Does anyone have a pressure regulator for this airplane? What
about rebuilding such an item.
The plane has not flown in a year, and owner is interested in getting it
back in the air. The hydraulic pressure regulator needs attention we
think, as when the plane last flew there was a spike in hyd pressure at
one point. The engines have been run every month on the ground but the
plane has not acutally flown.
< B>
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: | Flying "On the Step" |
Andrew,
This is purely an empirical observation, but in my 500B I've found that the
wing seems to become most efficient at an IAS of ~135kts+. There are huge
arguments for & against the 'step', but the benefit I've found is quicker
trimming.
Those smarter than me might be correct about flying it to the altitude, and
trimming from that point being no less efficient than overflying your
altitude by a couple hundred feet and dropping back down, but in my 500B it
seems to trim up much quicker, and at a higher airspeed sooner, if I fly it
a little higher and get on the step. If I DON'T do that, there are numerous
power/pitch/trim changes that need to be made before the airplane wants to
settle down. Think 15 minutes.
If I fly it onto the step, when I'm ~200ft above my target altitude, I can
point her downhill, close cowl flaps, pull the props back, set power, and do
the first big mixture grab. At that point the airplane is at its target
altitude and I only need about 60 seconds to get the trim where I want it.
Then I can focus on setting LOP and/or turbo boost, and the airplane will
stay rock-steady at the altitude. A slight trim adjustment over the next
minute or two is usually all it takes after that, and then I can settle in
for my hours of boredom at cruise.
Again, just anecdotal, but I sure seem to mess with the trim wheel a lot
less this way.
/J
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew &
Bridget Watson
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:03 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Flying "On the Step"
Hello everybody,
I read the earlier emails--some questions on "Flying on the Step".
Out on the Internet there appears to be violent disagreement on whether such
a thing exists or not. Note: I'm not trying to brew up a storm, just trying
to understand.
My father taught me there was such a thing. I believed and still believe
there is; that flying on the step is not a myth. The way I rationalised it
then is as below, I appreciate folks setting me straight, either on-list or
off-list.
1. There are 4 forces that act upon an aircraft:
1. Thrust, which is directly forward
2. Drag, which is directly rearward
3. Weight, which is vertical down
4. Lift, which is perpendicular to the aircraft wings, 'upward".
2. As speed increases, so does lift.
3. If the aircraft is in a nose down attitude, speed will increase
because:
1. it is in a shallow dive
2. lift, being perpendicular to the wings, will be assisting in drawing
the aircraft forward
4. Altitude "lost" in the nose down attitude will be compensated by the
increased lift associated with the increased speed.
Is this simple logic valid or should I go and hide my head in shame
somewhere? <grin>
Thanks all in advance for your help in my understanding of this.
Andrew
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: | Our Facebook Page |
I posted some of the comments on the mail-list to our FaceBook Page.
See if you like it:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aero-Commander/144424762275884
Nico
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! --
|