Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:34 AM - Re: Best prop (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
2. 11:44 AM - Fuel selector valve (Jim Langley)
3. 11:58 AM - Re: Fuel selector valve ()
4. 03:36 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (nick otterback)
5. 04:04 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Pete)
6. 04:13 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (pequeajim)
7. 04:33 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector valve (Brian Whittingham)
8. 04:51 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector valve (Benjamin Smith)
9. 04:56 PM - Flight test results (Brian Whittingham)
10. 05:40 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector valve (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
11. 07:27 PM - Re: Flight test results (EAFerguson@AOL.COM)
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 |
|
Jim,
I will also post this to the Lightning group as it might be of interest
to others.
As far as my experience goes (with my airplane and the other Lightnings
I have flown), Ryan is right on. I have been very pleased with the Sensenich
props, both wood and carbon fiber, that have the "ZK" blade profile. Note -
that is the only blade profile that I have flown, but I do know that Nick
has tried others and is currently testing a different blade profile on a fixed
pitch wooden Sensenich. Also, all of the Sensenich props that I have used
have been 64 inches in diameter, but I have tried pitches of 51", 53", 54" and
55 inches. I am currently flying the 55 inch and have about decided I still
need another inch of pitch on 31BZ. With the 55" pitch I can still over
speed the engine rpm limit at 5000' in level flight. I have not tested it higher
than 5000' but will probably do that soon. Most of my prop data for the
other pitches had been done at 5000 so that is where I do my comparison testing.
Having said the above, let me make a few other comments.
First, it seems to me that the ground adjustable carbon fiber prop
(pitch set at 54 inches) is about the same at the fixed pitch of 54 inches UNTIL
you get to the speed regime above 160 mph or so. Above that speed (and I can
only guess as to why) it is just not as efficient or fast. On my airplane
(your mileage may vary) I lose about 8 to 10 mph on top end. I say about 8 mph
because various test have resulted in various results (probably due to OAT)
with the loss of speed varying between 6 to 15 mph. I think it has to do
with the carbon fiber blades being stiffer. Also the total weight of the carbon
fiber prop with the aluminum hub is certainly heavier. I also seem to burn
slightly more fuel when this prop in on.
Second, the wooden fixed pitch props seem to run slightly smoother than
the carbon fiber prop did for me. Note - I had one of the very early ground
adjustable props and later ones may be better. But for me, the smoother run,
the lighter weight, the less fuel burn, and the faster speed all point to me
using a wooden Sensenich.
Third, both the white painted wooden and carbon fiber props seem to not
like to be flown in the rain. The paint on the leading edge erodes - at
least on the outer 12 inches or so. I know they have changed the way they paint
the carbon fiber ones based on what I saw at Sun-N-Fun. They now leave the
metal leading edge (nickel?) unpainted and that should help. They look good
that way. The wooded props with the clear wooden finish do not seem to have
this problem - at least I have not noticed it. So I am thinking the next prop
I order will have the wood finish. Kind of looks "neat" to me in an "out of
the ordinary way" to have a wood looking prop on a faster airplane.
Fourth, as I mentioned above I am currently testing the 64ZK55 wooden
Sensenich. Top speed at 5000' with spring like OATs (and holding the rpm to
3300) seems to averaging about 185 mph TAS or so, but my engine will still turn
up to 3400 or more if you let it go past redline. Take off rpm is down
maybe 50 rpm but the takeoff roll is a rapid acceleration and still short (less
than 500' even with two on board and full fuel - I live just above sea level),
so I can still add another inch of pitch and still get off short.
Lastly, why would someone try for a "top speed" prop when you almost
never run the airplane at top speed. To my way of thinking, on a clean airplane
like a Lightning (or 31BZ), that "top speed" prop will result in a faster
and / or more fuel efficient cruise speed at the speed or rpms that you do use
for cruise. Also, the Lightning, with the short take off roll and low stall
speed, can get in and out of short fields even with a "speed" prop. I
normally only use the first 1000' of runway for my airplane here in Virginia at
the
two airports I have hangars at. Both have a turn off taxiway at 1000'. If
it is gusty I might use 1500' to turn around, but 31BZ will float if you get
a 3 know gust. The Lightning wing is so much better in this respect that sea
level operation out of a 1000' runway (with good approaches) by a proficient
pilot should not be a problem.
Bottom line: You don't have to settle for a compromise prop or you
don't have to pay the dollars for a constant speed in order to get max
performance from a Lightning.
Blue Skies,
Buz
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: | Fuel selector valve |
I was thinking about using the ANDAIR fuel valve. I wanted one that would
allow me to fly with both tanks selected if I wanted to.
This one that I found at Aircraft Spruce is exactly what I am looking for,
but I quote their comment on the site: "The FS20x4 Fuel Selector is designed
for high wing aircraft where it is possible to feed from both tanks
simultaneously".
Wil this work if properly ported with the Lightning setup?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/fs20tYPE4.php
Also, I was looking for the smaller aluminum eyeball air vents, MAN! are
they expensive! I have only gone to Wicks and Aircraft Spruce. Is there a
better place to find this kind of stuff?
Jim!
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: Fuel selector valve |
Jim,
Someone on this list posted some nice photographs a few weeks back, where he had
used 4 aluminium vents from the passenger compartment of a Jumbo Jet!
By my calculation, that means he has about 296 left over. He might be willing to
part with them. Unless of course you have a scrapped Jumbo lying about somewhere
yourself?
:-)
Colin K.
OK
---- Jim Langley <pequeajim@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking about using the ANDAIR fuel valve. I wanted one that would
> allow me to fly with both tanks selected if I wanted to.
>
> This one that I found at Aircraft Spruce is exactly what I am looking for,
> but I quote their comment on the site: "The FS20x4 Fuel Selector is designed
> for high wing aircraft where it is possible to feed from both tanks
> simultaneously".
>
> Wil this work if properly ported with the Lightning setup?
>
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/fs20tYPE4.php
>
>
> Also, I was looking for the smaller aluminum eyeball air vents, MAN! are
> they expensive! I have only gone to Wicks and Aircraft Spruce. Is there a
> better place to find this kind of stuff?
>
> Jim!
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: Fuel selector valve |
Jim ...
the fuel selector will work if it also has a left and a right. This is because
you should run either left or right tanks when below half capacity. With the
low wing design the tanks may feed unevenly and when one emptys first the pump
will continue to draw air from that tank because it is easier than drawing
the fuel and result in fuel starvation. So you should be able to run left or right
when getting down on fuel quantity...
Nick
Jim Langley <pequeajim@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking about using the ANDAIR fuel valve. I wanted one that would allow
me to fly with both tanks selected if I wanted to.
This one that I found at Aircraft Spruce is exactly what I am looking for, but
I quote their comment on the site: "The FS20x4 Fuel Selector is designed for
high wing aircraft where it is possible to feed from both tanks simultaneously".
Wil this work if properly ported with the Lightning setup?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/fs20tYPE4.php
Also, I was looking for the smaller aluminum eyeball air vents, MAN! are they
expensive! I have only gone to Wicks and Aircraft Spruce. Is there a better
place to find this kind of stuff?
Jim!
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware
protection.
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: | Fuel selector valve |
Jim,
You can run off both tanks until one goes empty. Then you will just suck
air from the empty tank. Engine will run poorly on air alone.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Langley
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Fuel selector valve
I was thinking about using the ANDAIR fuel valve. I wanted one that would
allow me to fly with both tanks selected if I wanted to.
This one that I found at Aircraft Spruce is exactly what I am looking for,
but I quote their comment on the site: "The FS20x4 Fuel Selector is designed
for high wing aircraft where it is possible to feed from both tanks
simultaneously".
Wil this work if properly ported with the Lightning setup?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/fs20tYPE4.php
Also, I was looking for the smaller aluminum eyeball air vents, MAN! are
they expensive! I have only gone to Wicks and Aircraft Spruce. Is there a
better place to find this kind of stuff?
Jim!
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: Fuel selector valve |
"You can run off both tanks until one goes empty. Then you will just suck air from
the empty tank. Engine will run poorly on air alone"
I heard that about aircraft engines... You would think that Jabiru would make
an engine that can run on 100LL, AutoGas AND Air!
hmmmm..
BTW: I just bought the Jabiru Engine Installation Seminar from HomebuiltHelp.com.
I've viewed about half of it so far; very good.
My wife wanted to know who that stud was who was explaining the operation of the
carb?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114623#114623
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: Fuel selector valve |
Jim,
I've had experience with this. Nick told me to treat it like a Piper and
just switch every 30 minutes. The Grand Rapids EFIS also has a built in
interval alarm where it'll flash a message until you acknowlege it. Kind of
nice. I was flying Rick Bowen's plane and made a touch and go after about 3
hours of flight. I turned and the engine kind of choked down. I thought
that I had ran out of fuel on the high wing side. Come to find out it had
just burned uneven and the low wing had about 1/3 of a tank and was sucking
air in turning flight. Of course I followed the old pilot way of "undo
whatever you did if something goes wrong" and in straight and level it was
fine. Using the 30 minute interval I flew up to 3.5 hours at a time without
any further occurence. Brian W.
From: "pequeajim" <pequeajim@gmail.com>
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Fuel selector valve
"You can run off both tanks until one goes empty. Then you will just suck
air from the empty tank. Engine will run poorly on air alone"
I heard that about aircraft engines... You would think that Jabiru would
make an engine that can run on 100LL, AutoGas AND Air!
hmmmm..
BTW: I just bought the Jabiru Engine Installation Seminar from
HomebuiltHelp.com. I've viewed about half of it so far; very good.
My wife wanted to know who that stud was who was explaining the operation of
the carb?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114623#114623
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
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: Fuel selector valve |
On Thursday 24 May 2007, pequeajim wrote:
> "You can run off both tanks until one goes empty. Then you will just suck
air from the empty tank. Engine will run poorly on air alone"
When I went snorkelling, the top end of the snorkel point down towards the
water (my head) there was a seal and a floatie ball in a cage. When I was up
for air, the ball would rattle in the cage and let the air thru.
But when I went under, the ball would rise and plug up the hole so I wouldn't
have to spit out the water when I came back up.
Seems to me that you could do something similar by putting a floating ball in
a cage over the fuel inlet. Add gas, ball floats, fuel flows. Burn gas, fuel
drops, ball plugs hole.
Any reason why this isn't done in fuel tanks to prevent accidental "sucking of
air"?
Surely the likelyhood of this clogging in the air (rare, if properly designed)
is much less than the likelyhood of sucking air into the motor?
// My $0.02
-Ben
--
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long
to return."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
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: | Flight test results |
Well, after doing some preliminary work on my gap seal project I'm starting
to see some interesting results. After working out the data for the stall
speed tests I can report that 323AL stalled at exactly 44.2 knots with or
without gap seals in the clean configuration. This is as I predicted since
there's really no slot when the flaps are retracted. We couldn't do the
Flaps 30 b/c of how I designed the gap seals. Mine overlapped the flap and
would beat against it with flaps down. Sounded like a 727 thrust reverser
and we were uncomfortable as to what that might be doing to the airplane. I
can tell you that it should go up a couple of knots with flaps all the way
down. I can tell you that the cruise speed from Alpha Lima went up by
between 4-6 knots true airspeed at 2850 RPM. We ran at about 133 KTAS or
about 154 mph. Nick tells me that with a different prop and once they get
the jetting right with a prop it'll be a higher cruise speed. The max speed
is a little confusing to me. We got slower max speed during the gap seal
tests. I can tell you that for some reason the engine was turning about 200
rpm's less per data point than the unmodified condition. The temp was
warmer on the unmodified than the modified condition. I can't really
explain why the data come out like that. We got a max speed at 145 KTAS or
almost 170mph at about a 7,400 foot density altitude, but that was at only
3160 RPM's not the 3300 rpm that the engine is capable of with the right
prop pitch setup. Now on to the climb and glide stuff. Hopefully I'll see
something interesting there too. Enjoy, Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
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: Fuel selector valve |
In a message dated 5/24/2007 7:52:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pilot@benjamindsmith.com writes:
When I went snorkelling, the top end of the snorkel point down towards the
water (my head) there was a seal and a floatie ball in a cage. When I was up
for air, the ball would rattle in the cage and let the air thru.
But when I went under, the ball would rise and plug up the hole so I
wouldn't
have to spit out the water when I came back up.
Seems to me that you could do something similar by putting a floating ball
in
a cage over the fuel inlet. Add gas, ball floats, fuel flows. Burn gas, fuel
drops, ball plugs hole.
Any reason why this isn't done in fuel tanks to prevent accidental "sucking
of
air"?
Surely the likelyhood of this clogging in the air (rare, if properly
designed)
is much less than the likelyhood of sucking air into the motor?
// My $0.02
-Ben
Ben,
In my opinion, less is more.
The more crap you put in an airplane to fix something that isnt broke, the
more chances you have to experience unplaned landings. Adding anything to a
fuel system is just asking for the opportunity to be a part of the statistical
data that shows 80% of the homebuilt crashes are due to fuel problems.
You simply must pay attention to fuel tanks in a Lightning or you will cease
flying. Knowing you must switch tanks at some point is actually helpful.
Thousands of Pipers do it all the time.
Doug Koenigsberg
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: Flight test results |
Brian - and everybody else,
Results sound great to me! I was concerned about the possibility of
increased stall speed since I'm flying Light Sport, but that isn't a problem. If
I
can get +2 or 3K at 2750 it would be great, and I'll still be LSA legal. That
might just eliminate one fuel stop on my coast to coast record run. It will
surely increase my max range and give me more margin on the long legs.
So - - What do I have to do to be able to install the gap seals?
I will need to get a weight for the materials since I'm bumping the 500 kg
limit now.
Earl Ferguson
N17EF
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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! --
|