Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:39 AM - Fuel Efficiency ? was Re: Small Cross Country (lucien)
2. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Efficiency ? was Re: Small Cross Country (Eugene Zimmerman)
3. 02:16 PM - Re: Posting pictures, was/: Off To Oshkosh (planecrazzzy)
4. 06:39 PM - Re: Re: Posting pictures, was/: Off To Oshkosh (Eugene Zimmerman)
5. 09:27 PM - Re: posting links vs. pics (Ed Chmielewski)
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: Fuel Efficiency ? was Re: Small Cross Country |
Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
> Thanks lucien,
>
> That is very good fuel efficiency. Sounds like you have your engine
> and prop dialed in right.
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2007, at 10:13 PM, lucien wrote:
>
>
Actually, I don't quite understand why its even that good. The plane came out kind
of heavy at 440lbs empty weight. I suspect it's the C box and clutch, for
which the builder had to add ballast to the nose to get the W&B to come out correctly.
I had considered at one point going to the B box and a 2-blade prop and removing
the ballast. That would save around 25lbs...
But the plane has enough wing area that that probably wouldnt make much difference.
But I don't want to give up my clutch and my big honkin warp drive prop.......
But I wouldn't be surprised if a B box and 2-blade IVO wouldn't actually give me
slightly better efficiency.....
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125643#125643
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: Fuel Efficiency ? was Re: Small Cross Country |
lucien,
Any thing at this point that improves your fuel efficiency will
probably hurt your climb performance or seriously compromise engine
reliability, except perhaps an in flight adjust prop.
60/65 mph @ less than 3 gal. per hr. is excellent for your plane and
engine.
Gene
On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:38 PM, lucien wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I don't quite understand why its even that good. The
> plane came out kind of heavy at 440lbs empty weight. I suspect it's
> the C box and clutch, for which the builder had to add ballast to
> the nose to get the W&B to come out correctly.
>
> I had considered at one point going to the B box and a 2-blade prop
> and removing the ballast. That would save around 25lbs...
>
> But the plane has enough wing area that that probably wouldnt make
> much difference. But I don't want to give up my clutch and my big
> honkin warp drive prop.......
>
> But I wouldn't be surprised if a B box and 2-blade IVO wouldn't
> actually give me slightly better efficiency.....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> FS II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125643#125643
>
>
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: Posting pictures, was/: Off To Oshkosh |
I might add , that when you post pictures in the "photo share"
It can take "Days" before it's posted , sometimes it's taken over a week because
Matt was on vacation....He has to transfer the pictures onto the photo share.....
So if you think people will still be interested in going over the coversation
that was "over" a week ago.....then by all means , post'em on the photo
share and see "who cares" .....you might as well be on the Digest too,
and then you can answer questions that have already been resolved...
My point is.....The conversations and topic's are constantly
moving/changing...
if you don't have the answer or picture "now" , your just behind the curve
I have posted "Many" pictures on the photo share....
The way we do it now , is better....
.
.
.
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN
.
.
PS Ed , look really hard at the bottom ( DNA Sheez)
.
.
.
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125669#125669
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: Posting pictures, was/: Off To Oshkosh |
Mike,
I agree, that is a present matronics photoshare disadvantage.
I feel large picts files should be available with the e-mail message
in link form.
I believe this is a feature that Matt could automatically provide.
On Jul 25, 2007, at 5:15 PM, planecrazzzy wrote:
> <planecrazzzy@yahoo.com>
>
> I might add , that when you post pictures in the "photo share"
>
> It can take "Days" before it's posted , sometimes it's taken over a
> week because Matt was on vacation....He has to transfer the
> pictures onto the photo share.....
>
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: posting links vs. pics |
Hi Charlie,
(Changed the subject to match the topic.)
Thanx. You said it more eloquently than I could.
Ed
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Off To Oshkosh
>
> Very true. I got fed up with oversize images & set up my email client to
> reject anything over 500K. This solves the problem of locking up my phone
> line, but I don't get to see a lot of stuff I'd like to see.
>
> What seems to be lost on people like Mike is that it's pointless to send
> images bigger than around 100K for viewing on a typical computer screen.
> The monitor just doesn't have the resolution to show that much detail. It
> also seems to be lost on him that methods of reading email, like choice of
> airplane, is personal preference. I find web based email clients and forum
> based lists extremely clunky & slow, even when viewed on a broadband
> connection.
>
> It's a real shame he takes that attitude, especially when the Matronics
> list manager has provided him the tools to upload even his huge images if
> he desires, without penalizing the rest of us.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Russ Kinne wrote:
>>
>> FWIW -- Ed's not the "ONLY ONE" who has trouble getting pix --
>> 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! --
|