Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:20 AM - Re: 582 Power Settings (Bradley M Webb)
2. 06:52 AM - Re: 582 Power Settings (Guy Buchanan)
3. 07:33 PM - Re: off topic - Date time note (david yeamans)
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: | 582 Power Settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
Guy,
One thing to think about is the power curve of the 582. Torque drops off
sharply below 5800 rpm. It also rises sharply from 6000 to 6500. Mine, for
example, is pitched more for cruise, so I only see 6200 on climb out at
70mph. But this means that at 5800 rpm, I'm moving a bit faster, about
85mph.
You can't really equate % power between a four-stroke and a two-stroke. You
could if the torque curves were similar, but they're not. I would be willing
to bet that 5800 rpm is about 75%, or maybe a little lower.
I read an article a few months back, that running below cruise power, was
somehow "false-economy". I can't remember where it was, maybe a CPS article?
Another thing, in a two-stroke, the fuel is used to cool the combustion
chamber and provide lubrication. By throttling back, you reduce both
qualities. But then, you are reducing the heat produced and the internal
engine pressures as well. Maybe it's a wash? It's also liquid-cooled, and
maybe it doesn't make a difference here.
I run mine a lot at about 5100rpm, and get about 3-4gph. This is mostly for
just roaming around, looking down on the little people (!). Maybe this is
50% power? This puts my 'fox at about 60mph, and makes for a good flight
with the doors open.
Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:36 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: 582 Power Settings
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
I went back through the archives and discovered that the cruise RPM for a
582 is recommended to be 5800-6000 RPM. Looking at the HP/RPM chart I
calculate this to be about 95% power. Now, when I cruise my Lycoming or
Continental I use a maximum of 75% power. That would equate to 5300 RPM for
the 582. I also calculate 65% and 55% RPM's of 4800 and 4450, respectively.
Do we run such high RPM's because we're anxious to get somewhere? And is
that why the TBO is so low? If I ran 75% power, (5300 RPM,) at cruise could
I expect a much higher TBO? Are there problems with running around at 5300?
Thanks for the help.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
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: | 582 Power Settings |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:17 AM 4/22/2006, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bradley M Webb" <bmwebb@cox.net>
>
>Guy,
>One thing to think about is the power curve of the 582. Torque drops off
>sharply below 5800 rpm. It also rises sharply from 6000 to 6500. Mine, for
>example, is pitched more for cruise, so I only see 6200 on climb out at
>70mph. But this means that at 5800 rpm, I'm moving a bit faster, about
>85mph.
>
>You can't really equate % power between a four-stroke and a two-stroke. You
>could if the torque curves were similar, but they're not. I would be willing
>to bet that 5800 rpm is about 75%, or maybe a little lower.
Looking at the torque curve in the CPS catalogue, 5800-6000 is about peak
torque.
>I run mine a lot at about 5100rpm, and get about 3-4gph. This is mostly for
>just roaming around, looking down on the little people (!). Maybe this is
>50% power? This puts my 'fox at about 60mph, and makes for a good flight
>with the doors open.
If you believe the charts, 5100 puts you at about 70% power, 88% torque,
and you should be burning right around 3 gph. My big question with these
curves is what effect the gearbox has. Right off the bat it should almost
triple torque, but horsepower should stay the same. The torque curve will
be amplified, but not shifted in RPM, so I guess it makes no difference to
the operating RPM. If the prop is designed for the 3:1 box, then I presume
it's torque and power requirements will fall along the curves shown, as well.
Guy
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: off topic - Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "david yeamans" <dafox@ckt.net>
You Guys remind me of the two philosophing Monkeys that got overwhelmed by eating
to many
bananas impregnated with himp dust, they were OK because they lived in the jungle
social circle
with other monkeys that ate the same kind of Bananas that spoke the same language.
concequently,
their language out side the monkey jungle had no value.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: alnanarthur
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: off topic - Date time note
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Kurt, Thanks for the reply.
I think that I will take my towel and cogitate upon your most lucid
trilogy of conjectures.
I'm sure if I search deep enough, that I will find a kernel of truth
buried in there somewhere.
Yes, I have read about slowing light to a standstill and I don't
understand it.
Bell theorem proves quantum (spooky) action at a distance, but sadly
it also proves that it is not possible to use it to communicate
instantly . The receiver doesn't have the code needed to decode the
message, it would have to be sent by the "slow speed of light"
method. So you might just as well send the message via the speed of
light. Maybe wormholes would work!
As to your second point, I'm not getting in that box.
Thirdly, in a universe with 4 spatial dimensions, the effects of
gravity are unstable. And even gravitational waves are effected by
gravity. There would therefore clearly be Chaos in the Cosmos.
I think that only you and I seem to be playing this game. The other
listers seem to be underwhelmed with our deep. philosophical
ramblings. If the rain stops soon here in "sunny" CA, I'm going
flying.
BEAM ME UP SCOTTY
Al Arthur do not archive
On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:41 PM, kurt schrader wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> I love it Big Al!
>
> You immediately got the answer.
>
> Given that my physics is better than my spelling, I
> think I'll stick it out here while the list is quiet.
>
> We are way out of Popular Science and into Scientific
> American territory mow. Theory that is changed by the
> act of looking for the proof..... Uncertainity
> principle? Chaos and anti-chaos theory?
>
> You probably liked the origional Hitch Hiker's Guide
> to the Galaxy too? I got the books and movie both.
>
> 42???
>
> Hubble's constant?
>
> I like to use flouresent lights as my "simple" and
> every day quantum physics application. Jumpin'
> electrons, orbits and wavelenghts. Absorbtion and
> re-emmition..... It's a start.
>
> The example I gave is an older experiment where the
> light was then shined on a second pair of polarized
> lenses as detectors and you could determine that
> changing the polarity of 1/2 of the beam meant that
> the second beam would no longer penetrate its
> polarized lense until it was also turned. Messy as
> you said, but an interesting experiment.
>
> You are exactly right that if we view things in light
> speed and "no time" the answer is much more obvious.
> What we may see as light beams split and miles or
> light years apart is really still connected to the
> source, or everywhere at once.
>
> This leads me to 3 points.
>
> Have you heard of the recent success in entraping
> light or "stopping" it? A photon you say....
>
> Suppose that you split the beam (or entangled photons)
> in 2 and polarized each half, then entrapped them.
> Now if you carry the case for each half to any remote
> location, you can still (?) change the polarity of the
> other half by changing yours.
>
> Take 40 or so such paired split beams and make a
> "typewriter" from them that changes the orientation of
> each 1/2 beam for characters and symbols selected as a
> transmitter, or reads the polarity of those you have
> as a reciever. Perhaps an unjammable and undetectable
> communications device with no range limits? Beats
> VHF! I'll let you build the detector.
>
> Second point: If we replace the cat in the box with a
> scientist and give the outside observer scientist a
> gun, I bet we can determine if the scientist in the
> box is alive or dead within a shot or 2 without
> opening the box..... The boxed scientist will either
> scream, or not..... I just like cats... ;-) And not
> uncertainty.....
>
> Third, if gravity is such a problem to the unified
> field theory.... Do you notice that we don't really
> need any gravity in 4 dimensional space? Inertia will
> explain the observed effects, if time is considered.
> Accelleration requires a time component.
>
> All except you can still have "gravity waves" as in
> the unfolding of space-time, if mass is converted to
> energy. But I think the 3 remaining forces can do the
> whole job by themselves if we just recognize that we
> have time enertia too.
>
> Or am I just pulling your strings? :-) After all, I
> am just a KitFox driver. ;-)
>
> OK, everybody got that? There will be a test....
>
> Kurt S.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
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! --
|