Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:51 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Lynn Matteson)
2. 06:43 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Terry Phillips)
3. 06:43 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 07:39 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (BobsV35B@AOL.COM)
5. 08:47 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Lynn Matteson)
6. 09:34 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Lynn Matteson)
7. 10:09 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (BobsV35B@AOL.COM)
8. 11:54 AM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Ivan)
9. 12:26 PM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (BobsV35B@aol.com)
10. 12:41 PM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Hollis Babb)
11. 02:23 PM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Ivan)
12. 03:17 PM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 03:45 PM - Over heating (Roger Lee)
14. 04:13 PM - Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some (Ivan)
15. 04:13 PM - Re: Over heating (Lynn Matteson)
16. 06:40 PM - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_JabiruEngine-List=3A_Over_heating? (Wayne Flowers)
17. 07:10 PM - Oil (Dee Young)
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a Jabiru-powered
bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle for
the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL, but
at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Lynn,
>
> I certainly do!
>
> To steal from a lister on another list:
>
> "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"
>
> And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private
> pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend
> Cub which she built from a kit.
>
> We will have a few younger aviators after all.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I
> fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and am
> rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave
> for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know
> what I mean? : )
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Lynn
This is pretty exciting. I have been interested in LOP operation since I
read John Deakin's series of articles--see
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182179-1.html
and linked articles in the series.
Deakin's scenario was based on fuel injection, which did not appear to be
an option for the Jabiru, so I had put LOP aside. I have some questions
about the Rotec TBI.
It sounds like the Rotec is not true fuel injection, but rather is a
throttle body injector. Is that correct? How is it different from the
Ellison TBI's that I have seen advertised?
Deakin's articles suggest that very precise fuel injection is required for
LOP operation to keep the fuel/air ratios consistent between the cylinders.
What does the Rotec TBI do to achieve even distribution?
Have you seen any data for the Rotec TBI on the 3300?
If one can get the fuel savings that you have reported with the Rotec TBI,
the payback is very attractive. I did a simple minded calculation using
your data to produce the attached plot of payback miles and hours vs. fuel
cost. This looks like great deal if there are no adverse effects on the
engine. The numbers I calculated are here:
Gal/hr MPG TBI Cost
ROP 4.37 23.66 595
LOP 3.3 27.77
Payback
Fuel Price, $/gal Hours Miles
2.00 278 47559
3.00 185 31706
4.00 139 23780
5.00 111 19024
6.00 93 15853
7.00 79 13588
Terry
>In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
>
>--> JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>
>Over the last week, I've had some fun making some tests with my newly-
>installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement
>device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units
>will work on a Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete key
>right now.
>
>For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday
>I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In
>flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power requirements
>low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was
>amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well
>as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a
>skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even
>leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or
>bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any
>leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.
>Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP
>settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP settings. I
>had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then
>leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I
>contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.
>Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the fuel
>saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.
>Here are the average numbers from those trips:
>
>LOP: 27.77 miles per gallon; 3.3 gallons per hour; 93.14
>miles per hour
>ROP: 23.66 miles per gallon; 4.37 gallons per hour; 103.3 miles per
>
>hour
>
>Altitudes on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL (with a
>base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600 rpm to
>3050. Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per
>hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.
>
>So you can see from these figures (admittedly a low number of
>samples) that it does pay to tweak the mixture, and even if flown
>LOP, the speed is not too bad.
>
>Lynn Matteson
>Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
>Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
>Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>Rotec TBI-40 injection
>Status: flying
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; waiting on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Good Morning Lynn,
One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport Pilot
thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical denied, most of us can
transition to that mode when required.
Flying is still FUN!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane, she
would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it under the
experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
Big difference in payload!
In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
--> JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a Jabiru-powered
bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle for
the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL, but
at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Lynn,
>
> I certainly do!
>
> To steal from a lister on another list:
>
> "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"
>
> And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private
> pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend
> Cub which she built from a kit.
>
> We will have a few younger aviators after all.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I
> fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and am
> rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave
> for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know
> what I mean? : )
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Good Morning Terry,
Having the Continental style of intake injection to each cylinder makes it
a lot easier to make corrections if bad distribution is found to exist, but
some carbureted engines do have good distribution and can benefit from
lean side operations.
A very simple way to check distribution is to lean the engine and observe
it's response. It is best if you have an EGT and CHT on every cylinder
combined with a good electronic fuel flow device, but a check can be made with
none of the above.
Just set your normal cruise power at an altitude where your normally
aspirated engine cannot exceed seventy percent power. (Ya gotta do this in
smooth, stable air.) Then start to slowly lean the engine starting from full
rich. You should note a small increase in RPM as the mixture approaches the
best power point. When the RPM is the highest, that IS best power. Continue to
lean and see what happens. If you can get a hundred or so drop in RPM
before the engine gets rough, the distribution is pretty good. Richen back to
best power (Highest RPM) then lean for a fifty RPM drop and you will be very
close to best BSFC. As an aside, that is how Lindbergh did it on his
flight from New York to Paris.
Back to the beginning. Let's suppose that the engine gets rough before you
note much if any increase in RPM. -- That tells us that the distribution is
abominable!
If the engine is equipped with EGT indications for every cylinder and if
you have a good fuel flow unit, you can evaluate the distribution by doing
the following.
Once again, start out at seven thousand feet. Lean until a drop in fuel
flow is noted. Write down the fuel flow, the CHT and the EGT of each cylinder.
Drop the fuel flow another tenth of a gallon (maybe two or three tenths
for higher power engines) and write down the numbers shown. Continue doing so
until the engine gets so rough you can't take it any more. Look at the
data and note the point at which each cylinder's EGT peaks. If they all peak
at about the same fuel flow, the distribution is great. That is what would
happen for the engine I described earlier that had at least a one hundred
drop in RPM before the onset of roughness.
If the peak EGTs occurred with a substantially different fuel flow between
cylinders, the distribution stinks!
How much fuel flow difference is good and how much is bad? On an engine
that cruises at fourteen GPH, three tenths of a gallon difference between the
first to go and the last to go is considered excellent and a half gallon is
good. A gallon and a half to two gallons is abominable.
For lower power engines, use lower equivalent differences.
My first example assumes the use of a fixed pitch propellor. If the
airplane has a constant speed propellor (governor controlled) you can use
airspeed increase and decrease instead of RPM to find peak power.
I stole this idea of using the all cylinder engine monitor from the GAMI
folks at Ada Oklahoma. They are the manufacturers of the GAMIjectors that are
used in many Continental and Lycoming fuel injected engines and call it
the GAMI Lean Check.
Before GAMI came on the scene and devised the use of an all cylinder
monitor to find out which cylinder needs adjustment, all we had to work with was
the RPM or airspeed method and we just had to keep trying things to see
what would make the distribution better. Very hit and miss. The ready
availability of good engine instrumentation has made the quest for good
distribution much easier.
Changing the angle of the inlet divider vanes can make a major change on
our Jabiru engines. I am sure the participants of this list have many good
thoughts on what sort of tweaking will be productive.
Once again, having the data on paper tells us where to start!
Any help at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 8:44:31 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
ttp44@rkymtn.net writes:
Lynn
This is pretty exciting. I have been interested in LOP operation since I
read John Deakin's series of articles--see
_http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182179-1.html_
(http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182179-1.html)
and linked articles in the series.
Deakin's scenario was based on fuel injection, which did not appear to be
an option for the Jabiru, so I had put LOP aside. I have some questions
about the Rotec TBI.
It sounds like the Rotec is not true fuel injection, but rather is a
throttle body injector. Is that correct? How is it different from the Ellison
TBI's that I have seen advertised?
Deakin's articles suggest that very precise fuel injection is required for
LOP operation to keep the fuel/air ratios consistent between the
cylinders. What does the Rotec TBI do to achieve even distribution?
Have you seen any data for the Rotec TBI on the 3300?
If one can get the fuel savings that you have reported with the Rotec TBI,
the payback is very attractive. I did a simple minded calculation using
your data to produce the attached plot of payback miles and hours vs. fuel
cost. This looks like great deal if there are no adverse effects on the
engine. The numbers I calculated are here:
Gal/hr MPG TBI Cost
ROP 4.37 23.66 595
LOP 3.3 27.77
Payback
Fuel Price, $/gal Hours Miles
2.00 278 47559
3.00 185 31706
4.00 139 23780
5.00 111 19024
6.00 93 15853
7.00 79 13588
Terry
In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
--> JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Over the last week, I've had some fun making some tests with my newly-
installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement
device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units
will work on a Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete key
right now.
For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday
I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In
flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power requirements
low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was
amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well
as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a
skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even
leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or
bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any
leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.
Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP
settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP settings. I
had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then
leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I
contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.
Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the fuel
saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.
Here are the average numbers from those trips:
LOP: 27.77 miles per gallon; 3.3 gallons per hour; 93.14
miles per hour
ROP: 23.66 miles per gallon; 4.37 gallons per hour; 103.3 miles
per
hour
Altitudes on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL (with a
base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600 rpm to
3050. Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per
hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.
So you can see from these figures (admittedly a low number of
samples) that it does pay to tweak the mixture, and even if flown
LOP, the speed is not too bad.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; waiting on the wings
_http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/_ (http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/)
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
And most likely, a better resale value if she should ever decide to
do that when she builds her next plane. : )
I never went for the PP certificate, content to learn to fly in my
Kitfox, and content with the Sport Pilot certificate.
Flying is very much fun! Even today when I was flying around Michigan
International Speedway (site of today's NASCAR race), watching out
for banner-towing operations, peering through the thick haze, and
keeping a wary eye out for the blimp, which hasn't shown up yet. I
tried the LOP settings that you suggested....20 lean of peak
EGT...and saw CHT's of 303-312 F., pretty much what I had recorded in
my earlier tests, but in those I didn't have a specific goal for
setting the EGT to. I have seen my CHT's as close as 1degree F. apart.
Just to remind other Jabiru fliers, I have my CHT probes mounted
smack dab right down onto the head (via a drilled hole into the head
and a smaller electrical terminal holding the wires MUCH closer to
the head than the Jabiru-installed spark plug location), so my CHT
numbers will be about 50-75 degrees F. hotter than those that use the
spark plug location, with the "business end" of the probe sticking up
into the cooling air. I feel like I should mention that, just to
remind others that my readings WILL be different.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 16, 2009, at 9:36 AM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Lynn,
>
> One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport
> Pilot thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical
> denied, most of us can transition to that mode when required.
>
> Flying is still FUN!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane,
> she would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it
> under the experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
>
> Big difference in payload!
>
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
I've been reading the Deakin's articles just lately, and have a few
more to go....thanks for the address.
The Rotec is NOT true injection with nozzles at each intake tube, but
throttle body injection as you guessed. The Rotec representative
(he's way more than just a rep) that I bought mine from at Oshkosh
made no bones about virtually "stealing" the fuel discharge tube idea
from the Ellison. I think one main difference is price, but more than
that, the Ellison has...according to pictures I've seen....a
diaphragm or regulator built right into the body, whereas Rotec's
regulator is separate. Apart from that, they look pretty much
identical. Now before anybody climbs all over me for that statement,
I will say that I HAVE the Rotec TBI, and have not even SEEN the
Ellison other than in pictures, so my comparison is limited.
The Rotec TBI does not address even distribution per se, in probably
anything outside of their application with their engines. But I have
found that the distribution is pretty even, although the EGT numbers,
and the CHT numbers DO vary from cylinder to cylinder....different
loads, different rpm's, etc....but are pretty close together. I have
seen a CHT spread of 1 degree F., and EGT's within 34 degrees of one
another. I posted some numbers last week on one of the groups, can't
recall which, where the comparison between the Bing carb and the TBI
were made. The Bing's closest EGT spread averaged 89 F, and the
TBI's was 84. The Bing CHT average spread was 44, while the TBI was
21, and the fuel flow with the Bing averaged 4.27 gph, and the TBI
showed an average of 3.25. These figures were gathered over about 25
samples on each device.
I have all 4 cylinders monitored via my Grand Rapids EIS, for EGT and
CHT, and fuel flow with a Northstar F210. That's about as close as I
can get to doing anything about "even distribution".....monitor each
cylinder, and change a setting if it looks like I'm getting too hot
somewhere. So far this hasn't been a problem.
I haven't seen any data on the 3300, but a few folks (3300 drivers)
have emailed me personally, and have them on order....one guy was
even waiting on the porch for the Big Brown Truck to arrive with
his. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
On Aug 16, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Terry Phillips wrote:
> Lynn
>
> This is pretty exciting. I have been interested in LOP operation
> since I read John Deakin's series of articles--see
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182179-1.html
>
> and linked articles in the series.
>
> Deakin's scenario was based on fuel injection, which did not appear
> to be an option for the Jabiru, so I had put LOP aside. I have some
> questions about the Rotec TBI.
>
> It sounds like the Rotec is not true fuel injection, but rather is
> a throttle body injector. Is that correct? How is it different from
> the Ellison TBI's that I have seen advertised?
>
> Deakin's articles suggest that very precise fuel injection is
> required for LOP operation to keep the fuel/air ratios consistent
> between the cylinders. What does the Rotec TBI do to achieve even
> distribution?
>
> Have you seen any data for the Rotec TBI on the 3300?
>
> If one can get the fuel savings that you have reported with the
> Rotec TBI, the payback is very attractive. I did a simple minded
> calculation using your data to produce the attached plot of payback
> miles and hours vs. fuel cost. This looks like great deal if there
> are no adverse effects on the engine. The numbers I calculated are
> here:
>
> Gal/hr MPG TBI Cost
> ROP 4.37 23.66 595
> LOP 3.3 27.77
>
> Payback
> Fuel Price, $/gal Hours Miles
> 2.00 278 47559
> 3.00 185 31706
> 4.00 139 23780
> 5.00 111 19024
> 6.00 93 15853
> 7.00 79 13588
>
> Terry
>
>
>> In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
>>
>> --> JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> Over the last week, I've had some fun making some tests with my
>> newly-
>> installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement
>> device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units
>> will work on a Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete
>> key
>> right now.
>>
>> For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday
>> I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In
>> flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power
>> requirements
>> low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was
>> amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well
>> as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a
>> skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even
>> leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or
>> bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any
>> leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.
>> Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP
>> settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP
>> settings. I
>> had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then
>> leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I
>> contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.
>> Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the
>> fuel
>> saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.
>> Here are the average numbers from those trips:
>>
>> LOP: 27.77 miles per gallon; 3.3 gallons per hour; 93.14
>> miles per hour
>> ROP: 23.66 miles per gallon; 4.37 gallons per hour; 103.3
>> miles per
>>
>> hour
>>
>> Altitudes on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL
>> (with a
>> base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600
>> rpm to
>> 3050. Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per
>> hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.
>>
>> So you can see from these figures (admittedly a low number of
>> samples) that it does pay to tweak the mixture, and even if flown
>> LOP, the speed is not too bad.
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
>> Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> Rotec TBI-40 injection
>> Status: flying
>
> Terry Phillips ZBAGer
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, &
> ailerons are done; waiting on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
> <Payback for Rotec TBI running LOP.pdf>
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Good Morning Again Lynn,
Trust me, the actual numbers that you see on your EGTs are not particularl
y
significant.
The main thing is how close to the same fuel flow that the PEAK EGT occurs
on each cylinder.
Very small differences in the location of a probe can make major
differences in the EGT temps, but running a GAMI Lean Check will tell you
exactly
how even your distribution really is. Well worth the time it takes to per
form
the check!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 11:35:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
--> JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net
>
I've been reading the Deakin's articles just lately, and have a few
more to go....thanks for the address.
The Rotec is NOT true injection with nozzles at each intake tube, but
throttle body injection as you guessed. The Rotec representative
(he's way more than just a rep) that I bought mine from at Oshkosh
made no bones about virtually "stealing" the fuel discharge tube idea
from the Ellison. I think one main difference is price, but more than
that, the Ellison has...according to pictures I've seen....a
diaphragm or regulator built right into the body, whereas Rotec's
regulator is separate. Apart from that, they look pretty much
identical. Now before anybody climbs all over me for that statement,
I will say that I HAVE the Rotec TBI, and have not even SEEN the
Ellison other than in pictures, so my comparison is limited.
The Rotec TBI does not address even distribution per se, in probably
anything outside of their application with their engines. But I have
found that the distribution is pretty even, although the EGT numbers,
and the CHT numbers DO vary from cylinder to cylinder....different
loads, different rpm's, etc....but are pretty close together. I have
seen a CHT spread of 1 degree F., and EGT's within 34 degrees of one
another. I posted some numbers last week on one of the groups, can't
recall which, where the comparison between the Bing carb and the TBI
were made. The Bing's closest EGT spread averaged 89=B0 F, and the
TBI's was 84. The Bing CHT average spread was 44, while the TBI was
21, and the fuel flow with the Bing averaged 4.27 gph, and the TBI
showed an average of 3.25. These figures were gathered over about 25
samples on each device.
I have all 4 cylinders monitored via my Grand Rapids EIS, for EGT and
CHT, and fuel flow with a Northstar F210. That's about as close as I
can get to doing anything about "even distribution".....monitor each
cylinder, and change a setting if it looks like I'm getting too hot
somewhere. So far this hasn't been a problem.
I haven't seen any data on the 3300, but a few folks (3300 drivers)
have emailed me personally, and have them on order....one guy was
even waiting on the porch for the Big Brown Truck to arrive with
his. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
On Aug 16, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Terry Phillips wrote:
> Lynn
>
> This is pretty exciting. I have been interested in LOP operation
> since I read John Deakin's series of articles--see
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182179-1.html
>
> and linked articles in the series.
>
> Deakin's scenario was based on fuel injection, which did not appear
> to be an option for the Jabiru, so I had put LOP aside. I have some
> questions about the Rotec TBI.
>
> It sounds like the Rotec is not true fuel injection, but rather is
> a throttle body injector. Is that correct? How is it different from
> the Ellison TBI's that I have seen advertised?
>
> Deakin's articles suggest that very precise fuel injection is
> required for LOP operation to keep the fuel/air ratios consistent
> between the cylinders. What does the Rotec TBI do to achieve even
> distribution?
>
> Have you seen any data for the Rotec TBI on the 3300?
>
> If one can get the fuel savings that you have reported with the
> Rotec TBI, the payback is very attractive. I did a simple minded
> calculation using your data to produce the attached plot of payback
> miles and hours vs. fuel cost. This looks like great deal if there
> are no adverse effects on the engine. The numbers I calculated are
> here:
>
> Gal/hr MPG TBI Cost
> ROP 4.37 23.66 595
> LOP 3.3 27.77
>
> Payback
> Fuel Price, $/gal Hours Miles
> 2.00 278 47559
> 3.00 185 31706
> 4.00 139 23780
> 5.00 111 19024
> 6.00 93 15853
> 7.00 79 13588
>
> Terry
>
>
>> In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:21:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
>>
>> --> JabiruEngine-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson
>> <lynnmatt@jps.net>
>>
>> Over the last week, I've had some fun making some tests with my
>> newly-
>> installed Rotec TBI-40 mixture-adjustable, carburetor-replacement
>> device on my Jabiru engine. I don't know whether two of these units
>> will work on a Rotax, so many of you might want to hit the delete
>> key
>> right now.
>>
>> For the most part, I was flying it LOP (lean-of-peak), but yesterday
>> I made a flight and decided that I would try ROP (rich-of-peak). In
>> flying LOP, the articles I've read say to keep the power
>> requirements
>> low, and LOP will work and you won't burn the engine down. I was
>> amazed that this LOP thing even works at all, let alone work as well
>> as I've found that it seems too....I guess I'm still a bit of a
>> skeptic. After all, if going lean is a bad thing, how can going even
>> leaner be a good thing? I won't argue whether or not it's a good or
>> bad thing, and there are those of you that may not be able to do any
>> leaning at all, as I was until I got this unit.
>> Three days ago, I made two trips totaling 475 miles, using LOP
>> settings, and yesterday I made a 310-mile trip, using ROP
>> settings. I
>> had flown the 475 miles leaning out the engine until peak EGT, then
>> leaning more until the engine was obviously low on power, and I
>> contentedly flew at this setting, watching the scenery crawl by.
>> Yesterday I decided to actually GO somewhere, and never mind the
>> fuel
>> saving, I just wanted to get there, so I decided to try ROP.
>> Here are the average numbers from those trips:
>>
>> LOP: 27.77 miles per gallon; 3.3 gallons per hour; 93.14
>> miles per hour
>> ROP: 23.66 miles per gallon; 4.37 gallons per hour; 103.3
>> miles per
>>
>> hour
>>
>> Altitudes on all of these flight were anywhere from 3000' MSL
>> (with a
>> base of 1000') to 10,000 MSL, with throttle settings from 2600
>> rpm to
>> 3050. Fuel flow as seen on the gauge, ranged from 2.5 gallons per
>> hour to 5.0 not including takeoffs, but including climbs.
>>
>> So you can see from these figures (admittedly a low number of
>> samples) that it does pay to tweak the mixture, and even if flown
>> LOP, the speed is not too bad.
>>
>> Lynn Matteson
>> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
>> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
>> Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
>> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
>> Rotec TBI-40 injection
>> Status: flying
>
> Terry Phillips ZBAGer
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, &
> ailerons are done; waiting on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
> <Payback for Rotec TBI running LOP.pdf>
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a gross of 1320, either registered
as an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA. You can only have a gross above 1320
in the US if it is registered other than a LSA. Experimental or not has
nothing to do with it.
Ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: jabiruengine-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic
for some
Good Morning Lynn,
One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport
Pilot thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical denied,
most of us can transition to that mode when required.
Flying is still FUN!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane, she
would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it under the
experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
Big difference in payload!
In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
<lynnmatt@jps.net>
Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a Jabiru-powered
bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle for
the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL, but
at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Lynn,
>
> I certainly do!
>
> To steal from a lister on another list:
>
> "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"
>
> And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private
> pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend
> Cub which she built from a kit.
>
> We will have a few younger aviators after all.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next
time I
> fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and
am
> rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave
> for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know
> what I mean? : )
>
>
>
====================== Use
utilities Day
=======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Good Afternoon Ivan,
Our Granddaughter's Cub is not licensed as an experimental LSA.
It is a plain old Homebuilt registered under the old fashioned
Experimental Homebuilt (51 percent) category. The builder determines the gross
weight.
In this case, the Legend folks suggest that a builder of their kit
airplane use 1600 for the maximum gross and that is what our granddaughter decided
to do. She has it adequately equipped for night and IFR and plans to fly
it in those conditions under the same rules that apply to any other homebuilt
that has been built under the Owner Built and Maintained auspices of the
regulations.
She and the airplane have nothing to do with the Light Sport Aircraft
category. Nothing wrong with the LSA, but if you qualify for the homebuilt
experimental category, there is a lot more discretion left to the builder. She
is also flying under "normal" pilot rules, not the Sport Pilot Rules.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 1:54:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
imap8ntr@cox.net writes:
NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a gross of 1320, either registered as
an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA. You can only have a gross above 1320 in
the US if it is registered other than a LSA. Experimental or not has
nothing to do with it.
Ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: _BobsV35B@aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com)
(mailto:jabiruengine-list@matronics.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for
some
Good Morning Lynn,
One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport Pilot
thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical denied, most of us
can transition to that mode when required.
Flying is still FUN!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane, she
would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it under the
experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
Big difference in payload!
In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a Jabiru-powered
bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle for
the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL, but
at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Lynn,
>
> I certainly do!
>
> To steal from a lister on another list:
>
> "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"
>
> And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private
> pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend
> Cub which she built from a kit.
>
> We will have a few younger aviators after all.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I
> fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and am
> rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave
> for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know
> what I mean? : )
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ====================== Use utilities Day =======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution
Web Site sp;
____________________________________
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Sent from my iPhone
Hollis Babb
256-506-2834
On Aug 16, 2009, at 1:53 PM, "Ivan" <imap8ntr@cox.net> wrote:
> NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a gross of 1320, either
> registered as an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA. You can only have a
> gross above 1320 in the US if it is registered other than a LSA.
> Experimental or not has nothing to do with it.
> Ivan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BobsV35B@aol.com
> To: jabiruengine-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:36 AM
> Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic
> for some
>
> Good Morning Lynn,
>
> One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport
> Pilot thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical denied,
> most of us can transition to that mode when required.
>
> Flying is still FUN!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane,
> she would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it
> under the experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
>
> Big difference in payload!
>
> In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time, lynnmatt@jps.net
> writes:
> >
>
> Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a Jabiru-powered
> bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle for
> the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL, but
> at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
>
> Lynn Matteson
> Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
> Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
> Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
> Electroair direct-fire ignition system
> Rotec TBI-40 injection
> Status: flying
> do not archive
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Good Evening Lynn,
> >
> > I certainly do!
> >
> > To steal from a lister on another list:
> >
> > "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"
> >
> > And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private
> > pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend
> > Cub which she built from a kit.
> >
> > We will have a few younger aviators after all.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> >
> > In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> > lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> > Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next
> time I
> > fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and
> am
> > rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave
> > for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know
> > what I mean? : )
> >
> >
> > www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> > ====================== Use utilities Day
> ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> ======================= - List Contribution Web Site
> sp;
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
> www.matronics.com/c
>
>
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Sorry, I misread the email. It read "had she built" as a sport
category and I mistakingly read it as she had built. Sorry for the
reversal of words and confusion.
Thanks
ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: jabiruengine-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic
for some
Good Afternoon Ivan,
Our Granddaughter's Cub is not licensed as an experimental LSA.
It is a plain old Homebuilt registered under the old fashioned
Experimental Homebuilt (51 percent) category. The builder determines the
gross weight. In this case, the Legend folks suggest that a builder of
their kit airplane use 1600 for the maximum gross and that is what our
granddaughter decided to do. She has it adequately equipped for night
and IFR and plans to fly it in those conditions under the same rules
that apply to any other homebuilt that has been built under the Owner
Built and Maintained auspices of the regulations.
She and the airplane have nothing to do with the Light Sport Aircraft
category. Nothing wrong with the LSA, but if you qualify for the
homebuilt experimental category, there is a lot more discretion left to
the builder. She is also flying under "normal" pilot rules, not the
Sport Pilot Rules.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 1:54:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
imap8ntr@cox.net writes:
NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a gross of 1320, either
registered as an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA. You can only have a gross
above 1320 in the US if it is registered other than a LSA. Experimental
or not has nothing to do with it.
Ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: jabiruengine-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be
off-topic for some
Good Morning Lynn,
One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport
Pilot thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical denied,
most of us can transition to that mode when required.
Flying is still FUN!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane,
she would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it under
the experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
Big difference in payload!
In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
<lynnmatt@jps.net>
Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a
Jabiru-powered
bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle
for
the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL,
but
at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Lynn,
>
> I certainly do!
>
> To steal from a lister on another list:
>
> "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"
>
> And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private
> pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered
Legend
> Cub which she built from a kit.
>
> We will have a few younger aviators after all.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight
Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next
time I
> fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride,
and am
> rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to
leave
> for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there.
Know
> what I mean? : )
>
>
>
====================== Use
utilities Day
=======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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: | Re: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Good Evening Ivan,
No problem at all. I know that I do not use all the correct terms as I am
not all that familiar with the applicable regulations.
I did get out the FARs when she and her father were building the airplane
and we all agreed that building it under the fifty-one percent program was
the best for her.
She will also use that airplane to get her instrument rating and we wanted
to make sure it would be legal to fly actual IFR even though such a
requirement is not necessarily required to take the IFR check ride. She will
be
flying regularly in and out of Palo Alto. Since low fog conditions often
require IFR approaches in and out of that area, IFR capability is pretty
important.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 4:23:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
imap8ntr@cox.net writes:
Sorry, I misread the email. It read "had she built" as a sport category
and I mistakingly read it as she had built. Sorry for the reversal of
words and confusion.
Thanks
ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: _BobsV35B@aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com)
(mailto:jabiruengine-list@matronics.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for
some
Good Afternoon Ivan,
Our Granddaughter's Cub is not licensed as an experimental LSA.
It is a plain old Homebuilt registered under the old fashioned
Experimental Homebuilt (51 percent) category. The builder determines the gross
weight.
In this case, the Legend folks suggest that a builder of their kit
airplane use 1600 for the maximum gross and that is what our granddaughter decided
to do. She has it adequately equipped for night and IFR and plans to fly
it in those conditions under the same rules that apply to any other
homebuilt that has been built under the Owner Built and Maintained auspices of
the
regulations.
She and the airplane have nothing to do with the Light Sport Aircraft
category. Nothing wrong with the LSA, but if you qualify for the homebuilt
experimental category, there is a lot more discretion left to the builder. She
is also flying under "normal" pilot rules, not the Sport Pilot Rules.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 1:54:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
imap8ntr@cox.net writes:
NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a gross of 1320, either registered as
an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA. You can only have a gross above 1320 in
the US if it is registered other than a LSA. Experimental or not has
nothing to do with it.
Ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: _BobsV35B@aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com)
(mailto:jabiruengine-list@matronics.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for
some
Good Morning Lynn,
One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the Sport Pilot
thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical denied, most of us
can transition to that mode when required.
Flying is still FUN!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category airplane, she
would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building it under the
experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
Big difference in payload!
In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a Jabiru-powered
bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to settle for
the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the PPL, but
at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Lynn,
>
> I certainly do!
>
> To steal from a lister on another list:
>
> "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an excuse!"
>
> And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her private
> pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered Legend
> Cub which she built from a kit.
>
> We will have a few younger aviators after all.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the next time I
> fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the ride, and am
> rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry to leave
> for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get there. Know
> what I mean? : )
>
>
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ====================== Use utilities Day =======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution Web
Site sp;
____________________________________
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
____________________________________
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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 |
|
Just an FYI,
A friend of mine with a Rans Coyote (Jabiru 3300 engine) with over heating problems
with the EGT's using an Aero Carb went to a Bing and it solved his problems.
Dropped the EGT's by almost 150F. I don't think the Aero carb is all it is
cracked up to be. The Bing also lets you make fuel adjustments on idle, mid range
and full throttle separate from each other.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Service Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258063#258063
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: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic for some |
Bob
Thanks for all that info.
Merry flying,
Ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: jabiruengine-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be off-topic
for some
Good Evening Ivan,
No problem at all. I know that I do not use all the correct terms as I
am not all that familiar with the applicable regulations.
I did get out the FARs when she and her father were building the
airplane and we all agreed that building it under the fifty-one percent
program was the best for her.
She will also use that airplane to get her instrument rating and we
wanted to make sure it would be legal to fly actual IFR even though such
a requirement is not necessarily required to take the IFR check ride.
She will be flying regularly in and out of Palo Alto. Since low fog
conditions often require IFR approaches in and out of that area, IFR
capability is pretty important.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 4:23:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
imap8ntr@cox.net writes:
Sorry, I misread the email. It read "had she built" as a sport
category and I mistakingly read it as she had built. Sorry for the
reversal of words and confusion.
Thanks
ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: jabiruengine-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be
off-topic for some
Good Afternoon Ivan,
Our Granddaughter's Cub is not licensed as an experimental LSA.
It is a plain old Homebuilt registered under the old fashioned
Experimental Homebuilt (51 percent) category. The builder determines the
gross weight. In this case, the Legend folks suggest that a builder of
their kit airplane use 1600 for the maximum gross and that is what our
granddaughter decided to do. She has it adequately equipped for night
and IFR and plans to fly it in those conditions under the same rules
that apply to any other homebuilt that has been built under the Owner
Built and Maintained auspices of the regulations.
She and the airplane have nothing to do with the Light Sport
Aircraft category. Nothing wrong with the LSA, but if you qualify for
the homebuilt experimental category, there is a lot more discretion left
to the builder. She is also flying under "normal" pilot rules, not the
Sport Pilot Rules.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/16/2009 1:54:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
imap8ntr@cox.net writes:
NO NO not true. ALL LSA's must have a gross of 1320, either
registered as an experimental E-LSA or S-LSA. You can only have a gross
above 1320 in the US if it is registered other than a LSA. Experimental
or not has nothing to do with it.
Ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
To: jabiruengine-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: JabiruEngine-List: ROP versus LOP...might be
off-topic for some
Good Morning Lynn,
One of the very few things that the FAA has done well is the
Sport Pilot thing. As long as we manage to avoid having a physical
denied, most of us can transition to that mode when required.
Flying is still FUN!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
As an aside, had she built the Cub as a "sport" category
airplane, she would only be allowed to use a gross of 1320. By building
it under the experimental provisions, she can use a 1600 pound gross.
Big difference in payload!
In a message dated 8/16/2009 5:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight
Time, lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
<lynnmatt@jps.net>
Congrats to your granddaughter, AND for building a
Jabiru-powered
bird. She's young enough to go for the PP, while I had to
settle for
the Sport Pilot...heart surgery kept me from trying for the
PPL, but
at 72, the SP is all I need. : )
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 737.3 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
do not archive
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:09 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Lynn,
>
> I certainly do!
>
> To steal from a lister on another list:
>
> "The flight IS the reason. The destination is just an
excuse!"
>
> And I really must brag. Our granddaughter received her
private
> pilot airplane certificate today flying her Jabiru powered
Legend
> Cub which she built from a kit.
>
> We will have a few younger aviators after all.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 8/15/2009 7:57:58 P.M. Central Daylight
Time,
> lynnmatt@jps.net writes:
> Thanks for those numbers, Bob....I'll give them a try the
next time I
> fly...probably tomorrow. I tend to fly just to enjoy the
ride, and am
> rarely in a hurry to get somewhere. I'm always in a hurry
to leave
> for some place, but not necessarily in a hurry to get
there. Know
> what I mean? : )
>
>
>
====================== Use
utilities Day
=======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
----------------------------------------------------------------------
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?JabiruEngine-List
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Over heating |
Yup, and the Rotec TBI-40 goes one step beyond that...full range fuel-
mixture adjustments, in-flight. Sorry, I just couldn't pass up the
opportunity.....: )
Granted, the Bing lets you fly pretty much "think-free" but I've
found that I like to think once in a while.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger
Jabiru 2200, #2062, 739.7 hrs
Sensenich 62"x46" Wood prop
Electroair direct-fire ignition system
Rotec TBI-40 injection
Status: flying
On Aug 16, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Roger Lee wrote:
> <ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
>
> Just an FYI,
>
> A friend of mine with a Rans Coyote (Jabiru 3300 engine) with over
> heating problems with the EGT's using an Aero Carb went to a Bing
> and it solved his problems. Dropped the EGT's by almost 150F. I
> don't think the Aero carb is all it is cracked up to be. The Bing
> also lets you make fuel adjustments on idle, mid range and full
> throttle separate from each other.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Service Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258063#258063
>
>
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: | =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_JabiruEngine-List=3A_Over_heating? |
X-mailer: iAVMailScanner 1.5.3.5
He did not ajust the Aero-Carb correctly, It will far out perform the Bing
when PROPERLY set up ... W. Flowers
-------Original Message-------
From: Roger Lee
Subject: JabiruEngine-List: Over heating
Just an FYI,
A friend of mine with a Rans Coyote (Jabiru 3300 engine) with over heating
problems with the EGT's using an Aero Carb went to a Bing and it solved his
problems. Dropped the EGT's by almost 150F. I don't think the Aero carb is
all it is cracked up to be. The Bing also lets you make fuel adjustments on
idle, mid range and full throttle separate from each other.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Service Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258063#258063
=========
=========
=========
=========
_______________________________________
No viruses found in this incoming message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.3.5
http://www.iolo.com
_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.3.5
http://www.iolo.com
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 |
|
Would very much like to hear your thoughts on the use of sythetics in the
Jab. engine. Any opinions?
D C Young
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL
:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009
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! --
|