Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:36 AM - Matronics 2004 Email List Fund Raiser [PLEASE READ] (Matt Dralle)
2. 05:52 AM - Re: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps (Gary Casey)
3. 07:31 AM - Re: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps (Ken)
4. 08:20 AM - (TeamGrumman@aol.com)
5. 08:20 AM - Re: rebuild (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
6. 01:59 PM - Re: rebuild (Archie)
7. 02:31 PM - Re: rebuild (John)
8. 02:43 PM - Re: rebuild (cgalley)
9. 03:34 PM - Re: rebuild (Kent Ashton)
10. 03:40 PM - Re: rebuild (Kent Ashton)
11. 05:01 PM - Re: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net (Vic Jacko)
12. 05:33 PM - Re: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net (Trampas)
13. 05:40 PM - Carb Heat for Efficiency???? (Vic Jacko)
14. 07:41 PM - Re: rebuild (Joe Healy)
15. 08:07 PM - Re: rebuild (cgalley)
16. 10:05 PM - Re: (Tracy Crook)
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: | Matronics 2004 Email List Fund Raiser [PLEASE READ] |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like Fund Raiser to support the continued
operation and upgrade of the Email List servers at Matronics. The Lists
sponsored here are supported solely though the direct contributions of its
members each year during the Fund Raiser. As you have likely noticed,
there is no commercial advertising on any of the Lists or on any of the
List-related web sites such as the List Browser and List Search Engine.
That doesn't mean they're free to operate, however. To run a first class,
high-performance, highly-available service such as the Forums at Matronics,
its take resources. These resources fall into the categories of financial
and personnel. As far as "personnel" is concerned, its a one-man show and
I perform all of the work required to operate and upgrade the Lists without
being directly compensated for my work. But that's a labor of love. The
financial resources required, on the other hand, are covered primarily
though the generous contributions of the List members.
Direct costs include, for example, a commercial-grade T1 line Internet
connection dedicated primarily to serving the Lister Community. This T1
Internet connection provides a high-performance, dedicated connection to
the Archive and Browsing Tools and assures the quickest, most reliable
delivery of List messages. It seems like there's always an upgrade
required and this year I've added an all new online backup system to
automatically backup all of the Lists Archives as well as provide for
complete system disaster recovery. This new system would enable me to
restore the email and/or web server systems to 100% in only a couple of
hours if one of them were to blow up.
The number of messages processed by the Matronics Forums continues to
increase as well. In the last 12 months, there have been over 70,000
unique messages posted across the various lists, amounting to well over 32
MILLION messages that have been redistributed to List members in that same
period! The List web site also sees an equally high level of traffic with
some 148,000 Archive searches performed last year and a staggering 13
million web site hits!
During the month of November, I will be sending out a Fund Raiser reminder
message a couple of times a week and I ask for your patience and
understanding during this time. The Fund Raiser is the sole means of
support for the Lists, and the existence and longevity of the Lists hinges
directly its success.
This year once again, Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore has provided a
number of great incentive gifts during the Fund Raiser. Andy provides
these items to me at a substantial discount and they have proven to be very
popular among the Listers. Thank you Andy for your extraordinary
generosity and support of the Lists again this year! Please visit Andy's
web site, the Builder's Bookstore:
http://www.buildersbooks.com
If you use the Matronics Email Lists and enjoy the quick and easy access to
one of the best resources on the Internet for Homebuilt and General
aviation discussion forums, please make a Contribution today to support the
continued operation. Remember, its *your* Contribution that keeps these
Lists running.
The Contribution web site is freshly updated with a list of all new
incentive gifts! Transactions are SSL secured and you can make your
Contribution using a credit card, Paypal, or a personal check. The
Contribution web site can be found at:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
do not archive
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: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<I'm also making my own cowling. Pics on my web site.>>
Could you tell me how to get to your website? I'd like to see the pictures.
Also, another post was on the proposed benefits of running carb heat at low
altitude. I would think that the consideration is detonation. With a
standard compression ratio this probably isn't an issue, especially if
running LOP. Carb heat will help a carbureted engine as the higher
temperature will improve fuel vaporization and distribution. I would
hesitate to run carb heat when at high manifold pressures and at peak to 100
ROP. At low altitude, running full throttle and LOP should work out just
fine whether using carb heat or not. Carb heat would be just another way to
reduce the power output while keeping the throttle wide open to reduce
pumping losses. However, I don't see why you would run LOP and carb heat as
just leaning the mixture will reduce the power output by maybe 10%. And
there is no magic to the "75%" either. Of course doing all this will get
you to just a little less overall efficiency than if you climbed a few
thousand feet - why not do that? Another note from someone that observed
higher CHT's running full rich than at peak EGT. I would wonder if the
mixture is set correctly at full rich as it should be at least 200 ROP. The
full-rich mixture should reduce CHT compared to running at peak, just as
running LOP.
Gary Casey
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: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
--> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
With carb heat you must run higher gas temps to get the same power which
may not be best for engine longevity.
Altitude also reduces exhaust back pressure. For a given manifold
pressure, an increase in altitude actually means an increased mass flow
(due to an easier flowing exhaust) and efi systems do account for this
and add more fuel as altitude increases (for the same manifold
pressure). Even for an automobile this can easily be in the order of a
5% correction from what I understand. Anyway the point is that heating
the intake charge does nothing to reduce exhaust back pressure.
Pumping losses are only part of the equation. As you raise the intake
temperature you have less and less allowable combustion temp rise due to
metal temperature limitations and detonation margin which I believe
means lower thermal efficiency. I'm still mulling this but I think in
practice that is similar to saying that with a hot intake charge you
won't be able to lean as much and you end up in a losing situation. I
guess the answer is in the question - can you see a reduced fuel flow by
adding carb heat while maintaining the same cruise speed?
Sure there are situations where carb heat increases fuel vaporisation
and efficiency but I doubt they are common on a warmed up engine.
Ken
Vic Jacko wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
>Archie, would appreciate your feelings on reducing pumping losses by
>fooling the engine in believing that it is at a higher altitude than it
>really is.
>
>If we can make the engine think it is at 8,000 to 10,000 feet one can run
>full throttle without exceeding 100 percent power. I am aware this
happens
>at a lower altitude depending on outside temperature.
>
>Full throttle reduces pumping losses rather than pulling the throttle back
>to reduce power for cruise efficiency. Sooo this is what I suggest:
>
>Please fell free to flame me! We will enjoy your remarks!
>
>My suggestion is to heat the incoming air charge above the cold side
of the
>ram air intake by using carb heat in the right proportion to cause the
>engine to think it is in a higher density altitude once cruise flight
>begins. One could use a fuel flow device to determine the most efficient
>engine operation at altitude.
>
>I am fully aware that one will lose power by applying carb heat. Power is
>not the point, pumping losses are what we want to reduce to increase
>efficiency.
>
>Also, correct me if I am wrong but will a warm intake charge increase the
>effective cylinder pressures than a cold charge at a given power output?
>
>If this is true then will we not have an increase in the effective
>compression ratio in the above question at the same power output.?
>
>I hope you have time to give us you view on these ideas. Maybe if I am
>correct in my thesis we can save some fuel!
>
>Vic,
>
>Roswell, NM
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com
In a message dated 11/1/04 5:52:42 AM, glcasey@adelphia.net writes:
>
> Could you tell me how to get to your website?=A0 I'd like to see the pictures.
>
www.AuCountry.com
Click on TeamGrumman
Click on any of the pages.
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
This is encouraging but it is not my understanding of the legalities of
the system. I have a reparmans certificate that allows me to maintain MY
aircraft only.
It was my understanding that I cannot work on another A/C even if it is
identical to mine.
I don't think a complete engine reassembly would be considered to be
minor maintenance (I know the certified guys and check tire pressures
and change light bulbs legally) so I think an experimental engine
rebuild is A&P territory only.
Let me know if I'm wrong 'cus it would sure make my plane easier to
sell.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kent
Ashton
Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
--> Engines-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
Just do it. Buy a parts and assembly manual. You are permitted to do
any work you choose on the airplane yourself, even if you didn't build
the airplane. Farm out the parts to reputable inspection/repair shops
and if you think you know enough, reassemble it and go flying. [You
might need to fly off some test hours, not sure about that, though]
I just rebuilt an O-320 on an expeimental I did not build. I signed
off the test hours. --Kent
> From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> Reply-To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:13:32 -0700 0.26 UPPERCASE_25_50
message body
> is 25-50% uppercase
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: rebuild
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
>
> Nature
>
>
> I know this question must have been asked a million times, but... I
> have a Vari EZ that I did not build. The engine is an 0-235-c2c and
> it is at TBO. The end play is out of spec, it smokes a lot and will
> not run smoothly. What do I have to do in order legitimately break it
> down and rebuild it myself? I have all the technology to do the task,
> but I am not a licensed aircraft engine mechanic. How can I do this
> project myself? J. Healy
>
>
>
>
>
>
==
==
==
==
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> This is encouraging but it is not my understanding of the legalities of
> the system. I have a reparmans certificate that allows me to maintain MY
> aircraft only.
>
> It was my understanding that I cannot work on another A/C even if it is
> identical to mine.
That is quite correct, Frank
> I don't think a complete engine reassembly would be considered to be
> minor maintenance (I know the certified guys and check tire pressures
> and change light bulbs legally) so I think an experimental engine
> rebuild is A&P territory only.
According to the FAA, an overhaul is not considered a major repair.
Experimental aircraft engines may be overhauled by the owner holding
a repairmans certificate, or an A&P, provided he has all the tools,
knowledge, and manuals for such an endeavor.
> Let me know if I'm wrong 'cus it would sure make my plane easier to
> sell.
>
> Frank
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
I believe this is in error...anyone, even a 5-year old kid, can do anything
as far as maintenance to an experimental aircraft is concerned..it is only
the REPAIRMAN that can sign off the annual condition inspection...
You are getting a lot of bad information from other posters I fear.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: rebuild
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
>> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>> This is encouraging but it is not my understanding of the legalities of
>> the system. I have a reparmans certificate that allows me to maintain MY
>> aircraft only.
>>
>> It was my understanding that I cannot work on another A/C even if it is
>> identical to mine.
> That is quite correct, Frank
>
>> I don't think a complete engine reassembly would be considered to be
>> minor maintenance (I know the certified guys and check tire pressures
>> and change light bulbs legally) so I think an experimental engine
>> rebuild is A&P territory only.
> According to the FAA, an overhaul is not considered a major repair.
> Experimental aircraft engines may be overhauled by the owner holding
> a repairmans certificate, or an A&P, provided he has all the tools,
> knowledge, and manuals for such an endeavor.
>
>> Let me know if I'm wrong 'cus it would sure make my plane easier to
>> sell.
>>
>> Frank
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
The only thing that you can do that anyone else can't do on your airplane is
do the conditional inspection. Anyone can work on any experimental. After
you sell the plane, you can still do the conditional or anyone with an A&P
can do the conditional inspection. But anyone can do the work, but it of
course will have to pass the conditional inspection.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> This is encouraging but it is not my understanding of the legalities of
> the system. I have a reparmans certificate that allows me to maintain MY
> aircraft only.
>
> It was my understanding that I cannot work on another A/C even if it is
> identical to mine.
>
> I don't think a complete engine reassembly would be considered to be
> minor maintenance (I know the certified guys and check tire pressures
> and change light bulbs legally) so I think an experimental engine
> rebuild is A&P territory only.
>
> Let me know if I'm wrong 'cus it would sure make my plane easier to
> sell.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kent
> Ashton
> To: engines-list@matronics.com; jhealy@socal.rr.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
>
> Just do it. Buy a parts and assembly manual. You are permitted to do
> any work you choose on the airplane yourself, even if you didn't build
> the airplane. Farm out the parts to reputable inspection/repair shops
> and if you think you know enough, reassemble it and go flying. [You
> might need to fly off some test hours, not sure about that, though]
> I just rebuilt an O-320 on an expeimental I did not build. I signed
> off the test hours. --Kent
>
> > From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> > Reply-To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:13:32 -0700 0.26 UPPERCASE_25_50
> message body
> > is 25-50% uppercase
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Engines-List: rebuild
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
> >
> > Nature
> >
> >
> > I know this question must have been asked a million times, but... I
> > have a Vari EZ that I did not build. The engine is an 0-235-c2c and
> > it is at TBO. The end play is out of spec, it smokes a lot and will
> > not run smoothly. What do I have to do in order legitimately break it
>
> > down and rebuild it myself? I have all the technology to do the task,
>
> > but I am not a licensed aircraft engine mechanic. How can I do this
> > project myself? J. Healy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
> From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: rebuild
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> This is encouraging but it is not my understanding of the legalities of
> the system. I have a reparmans certificate that allows me to maintain MY
> aircraft only.
>
Trust me. This question comes up frequently and this is the answer. But
you can probably find the definitive answer on the EAA website or the
rec.aviation.homebuilt FAQs. It's based on 14 CFR Part 43.1(b) which says
"this part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental
airworthiness certificate has been issued." Part 43.3 and 43.7 requires
maintenance to be done by certified mechanics. Since Part 43 doesn't apply
to experimentals, we default to the Operating Limitations issued for our
aircraft. My Operating Limits only discuss the annual condition inspection
and says it must be performed by a person with a repairman certificate, i.e,
an A&P or the builder. Therefore, by default, all other maintenance is wide
open. In fact, you may do any work on anybody's experimental aircraft, even
ones you didn't build and don't own. How's that for FREEDOM, my friend?
You just can't perform the annual condition inspection on these aircraft
unless you got a repairman certificate for it.
> It was my understanding that I cannot work on another A/C even if it is
> identical to mine.
Standard certificated aircraft, yes. Experimentals, no. The FAA
understands that experimentals would be unsellable if they had to be
maintained by certified mechanics because certified mechanics often do not
know what they're looking at and would constantly be asking what repair
standards apply for somebody's bondo and bailing wire airplane. That's why
they leave maintenance to the owners.
>
> I don't think a complete engine reassembly would be considered to be
> minor maintenance (I know the certified guys and check tire pressures
> and change light bulbs legally) so I think an experimental engine
> rebuild is A&P territory only.
Suppose you bought an experimental airplane with a Mazda rotary. Would
you have to get an A&P to rebuild the Mazda for you and sign if off? No.
Suppose you bought an experimental with an ex-Lycoming engine but with
non-certificated electronic ignition and non-certified Ellison carb,
non-certifed pistons, funky stroker crank and special cam. Would an A&P
know anything about these non-certifed components? No. For that reason,
when an otherwise certificated engine, like a Lycoming, is used in a
non-certificated aircraft, or paired with a non-certificated prop, or worked
on by a non-certificated person, it becomes, as far as the FAA is concerned,
like a Mazda. You're on your own. The normal rules don't apply.
>
> Let me know if I'm wrong 'cus it would sure make my plane easier to
> sell.
Your wrong. Congratulations. ;>)
--Kent
Cozy IV builder, Cozy III owner
EAA Tech. counselor
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
For the most part, this information is wrong.
--Kent Ashton
EAA Tech. Counselor
> From: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:58:55 -0500
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: rebuild
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
>> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>> This is encouraging but it is not my understanding of the legalities of
>> the system. I have a reparmans certificate that allows me to maintain MY
>> aircraft only.
>>
>> It was my understanding that I cannot work on another A/C even if it is
>> identical to mine.
> That is quite correct, Frank
>
>> I don't think a complete engine reassembly would be considered to be
>> minor maintenance (I know the certified guys and check tire pressures
>> and change light bulbs legally) so I think an experimental engine
>> rebuild is A&P territory only.
> According to the FAA, an overhaul is not considered a major repair.
> Experimental aircraft engines may be overhauled by the owner holding
> a repairmans certificate, or an A&P, provided he has all the tools,
> knowledge, and manuals for such an endeavor.
>
>> Let me know if I'm wrong 'cus it would sure make my plane easier to
>> sell.
>>
>> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Ken, thanks for your impute. My quest is to improve efficiency. I was
under the impression that heat in the combustion chamber is what produces
power, thus adding a little heat to the intake air should produce better
fuel vaporization and thus more efficiency due to reduction in pumping
losses. Please remember we are not interested in max power just more miles
per gallon.
You may remember the Sterling Engine which Mazda used to increase engine
efficiency. They actually used a turbocharger to heat the air prior to
induction. Sure they had to control detonation by retarding the spark but
it did work. Comments?
Thanks again for the help.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> With carb heat you must run higher gas temps to get the same power which
> may not be best for engine longevity.
>
> Altitude also reduces exhaust back pressure. For a given manifold
> pressure, an increase in altitude actually means an increased mass flow
> (due to an easier flowing exhaust) and efi systems do account for this
> and add more fuel as altitude increases (for the same manifold
> pressure). Even for an automobile this can easily be in the order of a
> 5% correction from what I understand. Anyway the point is that heating
> the intake charge does nothing to reduce exhaust back pressure.
>
> Pumping losses are only part of the equation. As you raise the intake
> temperature you have less and less allowable combustion temp rise due to
> metal temperature limitations and detonation margin which I believe
> means lower thermal efficiency. I'm still mulling this but I think in
> practice that is similar to saying that with a hot intake charge you
> won't be able to lean as much and you end up in a losing situation. I
> guess the answer is in the question - can you see a reduced fuel flow by
> adding carb heat while maintaining the same cruise speed?
>
> Sure there are situations where carb heat increases fuel vaporisation
> and efficiency but I doubt they are common on a warmed up engine.
>
> Ken
>
> Vic Jacko wrote:
>
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Archie, would appreciate your feelings on reducing pumping losses by
> >fooling the engine in believing that it is at a higher altitude than it
> >really is.
> >
> >If we can make the engine think it is at 8,000 to 10,000 feet one can
run
> >full throttle without exceeding 100 percent power. I am aware this
> happens
> >at a lower altitude depending on outside temperature.
> >
> >Full throttle reduces pumping losses rather than pulling the throttle
back
> >to reduce power for cruise efficiency. Sooo this is what I suggest:
> >
> >Please fell free to flame me! We will enjoy your remarks!
> >
> >My suggestion is to heat the incoming air charge above the cold side
> of the
> >ram air intake by using carb heat in the right proportion to cause the
> >engine to think it is in a higher density altitude once cruise flight
> >begins. One could use a fuel flow device to determine the most
efficient
> >engine operation at altitude.
> >
> >I am fully aware that one will lose power by applying carb heat. Power
is
> >not the point, pumping losses are what we want to reduce to increase
> >efficiency.
> >
> >Also, correct me if I am wrong but will a warm intake charge increase
the
> >effective cylinder pressures than a cold charge at a given power
output?
> >
> >If this is true then will we not have an increase in the effective
> >compression ratio in the above question at the same power output.?
> >
> >I hope you have time to give us you view on these ideas. Maybe if I am
> >correct in my thesis we can save some fuel!
> >
> >Vic,
> >
> >Roswell, NM
> >
> >
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Very simply the burning of the fuel causes makes gas expand that produce the
power. So to burn the fuel in a gasoline engine you need oxygen and fuel
mixed close to 14.7:1. So heating the air cause the air to expand which
means it has less oxygen per unit volume. Now heating the fuel does cause it
to vaporize which can create a better mixing of the fuel and air. So
basically you want the fuel well vaporized, like from a fuel injector and
the air cold and dense.
A turbo charger on an engine basically forces more air into the engine,
which means you can add more fuel to get more power. Now when you compress
air it will get hotter which is not what you want. Therefore most turbo
charged cars today also have an intercooler which cools the air back down
before going into engine.
Now as another thing that happens with turbo charging is that your effective
compression ratio of the engine increases. The increase in compression ratio
of an engine generally equates to more efficient engine. Thus turbo charged
engine are usually a slight bit more efficient.
Regards,
Trampas
www.sterntech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic Jacko
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Ken, thanks for your impute. My quest is to improve efficiency. I was
under the impression that heat in the combustion chamber is what produces
power, thus adding a little heat to the intake air should produce better
fuel vaporization and thus more efficiency due to reduction in pumping
losses. Please remember we are not interested in max power just more miles
per gallon.
You may remember the Sterling Engine which Mazda used to increase engine
efficiency. They actually used a turbocharger to heat the air prior to
induction. Sure they had to control detonation by retarding the spark but
it did work. Comments?
Thanks again for the help.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> With carb heat you must run higher gas temps to get the same power which
> may not be best for engine longevity.
>
> Altitude also reduces exhaust back pressure. For a given manifold
> pressure, an increase in altitude actually means an increased mass flow
> (due to an easier flowing exhaust) and efi systems do account for this
> and add more fuel as altitude increases (for the same manifold
> pressure). Even for an automobile this can easily be in the order of a
> 5% correction from what I understand. Anyway the point is that heating
> the intake charge does nothing to reduce exhaust back pressure.
>
> Pumping losses are only part of the equation. As you raise the intake
> temperature you have less and less allowable combustion temp rise due to
> metal temperature limitations and detonation margin which I believe
> means lower thermal efficiency. I'm still mulling this but I think in
> practice that is similar to saying that with a hot intake charge you
> won't be able to lean as much and you end up in a losing situation. I
> guess the answer is in the question - can you see a reduced fuel flow by
> adding carb heat while maintaining the same cruise speed?
>
> Sure there are situations where carb heat increases fuel vaporisation
> and efficiency but I doubt they are common on a warmed up engine.
>
> Ken
>
> Vic Jacko wrote:
>
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Archie, would appreciate your feelings on reducing pumping losses by
> >fooling the engine in believing that it is at a higher altitude than it
> >really is.
> >
> >If we can make the engine think it is at 8,000 to 10,000 feet one can
run
> >full throttle without exceeding 100 percent power. I am aware this
> happens
> >at a lower altitude depending on outside temperature.
> >
> >Full throttle reduces pumping losses rather than pulling the throttle
back
> >to reduce power for cruise efficiency. Sooo this is what I suggest:
> >
> >Please fell free to flame me! We will enjoy your remarks!
> >
> >My suggestion is to heat the incoming air charge above the cold side
> of the
> >ram air intake by using carb heat in the right proportion to cause the
> >engine to think it is in a higher density altitude once cruise flight
> >begins. One could use a fuel flow device to determine the most
efficient
> >engine operation at altitude.
> >
> >I am fully aware that one will lose power by applying carb heat. Power
is
> >not the point, pumping losses are what we want to reduce to increase
> >efficiency.
> >
> >Also, correct me if I am wrong but will a warm intake charge increase
the
> >effective cylinder pressures than a cold charge at a given power
output?
> >
> >If this is true then will we not have an increase in the effective
> >compression ratio in the above question at the same power output.?
> >
> >I hope you have time to give us you view on these ideas. Maybe if I am
> >correct in my thesis we can save some fuel!
> >
> >Vic,
> >
> >Roswell, NM
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Carb Heat for Efficiency???? |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Ken, I just noticed you were able to reduce all my gibberish to the
question you stated (below)
"can you see a reduced fuel flow by
adding carb heat while maintaining the same cruise speed?"
How about other engine Guru's commenting on this subject?
If I had a fuel flow meter I would check it out in the air.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Archie, questions on Exhaust Temps clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> With carb heat you must run higher gas temps to get the same power which
> may not be best for engine longevity.
>
> Altitude also reduces exhaust back pressure. For a given manifold
> pressure, an increase in altitude actually means an increased mass flow
> (due to an easier flowing exhaust) and efi systems do account for this
> and add more fuel as altitude increases (for the same manifold
> pressure). Even for an automobile this can easily be in the order of a
> 5% correction from what I understand. Anyway the point is that heating
> the intake charge does nothing to reduce exhaust back pressure.
>
> Pumping losses are only part of the equation. As you raise the intake
> temperature you have less and less allowable combustion temp rise due to
> metal temperature limitations and detonation margin which I believe
> means lower thermal efficiency. I'm still mulling this but I think in
> practice that is similar to saying that with a hot intake charge you
> won't be able to lean as much and you end up in a losing situation. I
> guess the answer is in the question - can you see a reduced fuel flow by
> adding carb heat while maintaining the same cruise speed?
>
> Sure there are situations where carb heat increases fuel vaporisation
> and efficiency but I doubt they are common on a warmed up engine.
>
> Ken
>
> Vic Jacko wrote:
>
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Archie, would appreciate your feelings on reducing pumping losses by
> >fooling the engine in believing that it is at a higher altitude than it
> >really is.
> >
> >If we can make the engine think it is at 8,000 to 10,000 feet one can
run
> >full throttle without exceeding 100 percent power. I am aware this
> happens
> >at a lower altitude depending on outside temperature.
> >
> >Full throttle reduces pumping losses rather than pulling the throttle
back
> >to reduce power for cruise efficiency. Sooo this is what I suggest:
> >
> >Please fell free to flame me! We will enjoy your remarks!
> >
> >My suggestion is to heat the incoming air charge above the cold side
> of the
> >ram air intake by using carb heat in the right proportion to cause the
> >engine to think it is in a higher density altitude once cruise flight
> >begins. One could use a fuel flow device to determine the most
efficient
> >engine operation at altitude.
> >
> >I am fully aware that one will lose power by applying carb heat. Power
is
> >not the point, pumping losses are what we want to reduce to increase
> >efficiency.
> >
> >Also, correct me if I am wrong but will a warm intake charge increase
the
> >effective cylinder pressures than a cold charge at a given power
output?
> >
> >If this is true then will we not have an increase in the effective
> >compression ratio in the above question at the same power output.?
> >
> >I hope you have time to give us you view on these ideas. Maybe if I am
> >correct in my thesis we can save some fuel!
> >
> >Vic,
> >
> >Roswell, NM
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
Kent,
Your version of this issue seems most in line with a presentation I attended
at an EAA meeting years ago. I just wish I took notes.
Someone (knowledgeable) told me that while my airplane was experimental, the
engine was not and that it would have to be overhauled by an A&P. I could
not do it myself. Could that be true, even from some obscure point of view?
It is a fact that the engine on my Vari EZ is completely unmodified and
therefore is just like a certified 0-235. However, it was my understanding
that if a certificated engine were to be removed from a certificated
airplane and installed on an experimental, even if the engine remains
completely unmodified, then it could not thereafter be returned to service
on a certificated airplane. In other words, the simple act of mounting the
engine on an experimental plane "voids", as it were, the certification. Or,
does having all engine work done by an A&P result in the survival of the
certification?
Any thoughts?
J Healy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Ashton" <kjashton@vnet.net>
>Therefore, by default, all other maintenance is wide
> open. In fact, you may do any work on anybody's experimental aircraft,
even
> ones you didn't build and don't own. How's that for FREEDOM, my friend?
> You just can't perform the annual condition inspection on these aircraft
> unless you got a repairman certificate for it.
>
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 |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
What part of ALL don't you understand?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: rebuild
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Joe Healy" <jhealy@socal.rr.com>
>
> Kent,
>
> Your version of this issue seems most in line with a presentation I
attended
> at an EAA meeting years ago. I just wish I took notes.
>
> Someone (knowledgeable) told me that while my airplane was experimental,
the
> engine was not and that it would have to be overhauled by an A&P. I could
> not do it myself. Could that be true, even from some obscure point of
view?
>
> It is a fact that the engine on my Vari EZ is completely unmodified and
> therefore is just like a certified 0-235. However, it was my
understanding
> that if a certificated engine were to be removed from a certificated
> airplane and installed on an experimental, even if the engine remains
> completely unmodified, then it could not thereafter be returned to service
> on a certificated airplane. In other words, the simple act of mounting
the
> engine on an experimental plane "voids", as it were, the certification.
Or,
> does having all engine work done by an A&P result in the survival of the
> certification?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> J Healy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Ashton" <kjashton@vnet.net>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> >Therefore, by default, all other maintenance is wide
> > open. In fact, you may do any work on anybody's experimental aircraft,
> even
> > ones you didn't build and don't own. How's that for FREEDOM, my friend?
> > You just can't perform the annual condition inspection on these aircraft
> > unless you got a repairman certificate for it.
> >
>
>
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 01:01:26 -0500
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
www.rotaryaviation.com<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/>
----- Original Message -----
From: TeamGrumman@aol.com<mailto:TeamGrumman@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:19 AM
--> Engines-List message posted by: TeamGrumman@aol.com<mailto:TeamGrumman@aol.com>
In a message dated 11/1/04 5:52:42 AM, glcasey@adelphia.net<mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net> writes:
>
> Could you tell me how to get to your website?A0 I'd like to see the pictures.
>
www.AuCountry.com<http://www.aucountry.com/>
Click on TeamGrumman
Click on any of the pages.
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! --
|