Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:15 AM - electric tachs (Jeff Boatright)
2. 08:23 AM - Re: electric tachs ()
3. 10:18 AM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Bill Church)
4. 10:38 AM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Steve Eldredge)
5. 11:31 AM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (HelsperSew@aol.com)
6. 11:54 AM - Electric tach (KMHeide)
7. 12:26 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Graham Hansen)
8. 12:57 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Gene Rambo)
9. 02:02 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Bill Church)
10. 02:13 PM - New Pietenpol book (Bill Church)
11. 02:35 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Bill Church)
12. 02:48 PM - Re: New Pietenpol book (Steve Ruse)
13. 04:08 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Gene Rambo)
14. 05:27 PM - fuel (Dick Navratil)
15. 05:32 PM - Re: fuel (TomTravis@aol.com)
16. 06:19 PM - Re: fuel (gcardinal)
17. 06:39 PM - Re: fuel (Mark Blackwell)
18. 07:35 PM - Re: fuel (Gordon Bowen)
19. 08:38 PM - fuel (Dick Navratil)
20. 09:38 PM - Re: electric tachs (Rcaprd@aol.com)
21. 09:43 PM - Re: Electric tach (Rcaprd@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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
I plan to install an electric tachometer (UMA 3-1/8", 19-806-10).
These tachs have either a P-lead that goes right to the magneto or
they have a sparkplug lead that goes to a plug.
How can these be installed so that a mag check can be done? That is,
in one of the positions when the mag switch is turned to "Left" or
"Right", won't the tach just go to zero because it's mag has been
turned off?
One of the reasons I want to go this route is that I'm tired of the
old style cables snapping or instruments breaking. However, I'm open
to other suggestions. The engine is a C-75 and the mags are Slick.
Thanks,
Jeff
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <harvey.rule@bell.ca>
In my case if you shut the left mag off the tach goes to zero and if you
shut the right one off then it just drops accordingly to a lower rpm
which is what it should do.The left one may be wired wrong or that may
just be the nature of the beast.I didn't wire it so I'm not sure if it's
right but my AME didn't seem to be too concerned about it so I didn't
get all bent out of shape over it.I figure if he ain't excited and he
knows better than me then I'm just fine with that.Actually when I shut
off left mags there isn't even a noticible drop in rpm from the noise
level you can hear if there was a drop.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: August 28, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: electric tachs
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
I plan to install an electric tachometer (UMA 3-1/8", 19-806-10).
These tachs have either a P-lead that goes right to the magneto or
they have a sparkplug lead that goes to a plug.
How can these be installed so that a mag check can be done? That is,
in one of the positions when the mag switch is turned to "Left" or
"Right", won't the tach just go to zero because it's mag has been
turned off?
One of the reasons I want to go this route is that I'm tired of the
old style cables snapping or instruments breaking. However, I'm open
to other suggestions. The engine is a C-75 and the mags are Slick.
Thanks,
Jeff
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: | Parallel struts and Gene's question |
After reading through all the recent postings regarding the dimensions
of the landing gear attach points vs the lift strut attach points (at
the spars), I dug out my copies of the plans (1933-34 improved and 1932
F&G) and looked them over.
The F&G plans DO show the lower cross pieces (1" x 3/4" spruce, not 2" x
3/4" ash) aligned with the clusters on the fuselage sides - at 28 3/4"
between centers. BUT... nowhere in the F&G plans was I able to find the
spacing for the wing spars. (How the heck does anyone manage to build a
plane solely from these plans and feel secure enough to get in it and
fly? Hats off to them.)
And if you look closely at the F&G plans (fig. 6A), the landing gear
attach points do not actually appear to align exactly with the 28 3/4"
centers on the fuselage. The rear attach point looks fine, but the
forward attach point appears to be about a half inch back of center (say
28 1/4").
Since the dimensions are much clearer (relatively speaking) on the
1933-34 improved plans, and they indicate 2" wide ash cross-pieces at 27
1/2" centers, it looks like they would be okay to use as-drawn with
either the split gear of the 33-34 plans (27 1/2") or the straight axle
gear of the 32 F&G plans (28 3/4"... or is that 28 1/4" as it appears
from fig. 6A). Being an engineer, my line of reasoning is always that
one does not change a design without a reason. And it is clear that
certain changes were made between the F&G plans and the "improved"
plans, one of which was to change the size, material and location of
these lower cross pieces. I make the assumption that there was a
reason(s) for these changes, and, based on the successful history of the
revised design, I also make the assumption that the changes were
successful.
My plan is to build my fuselage to the plans and not worry too much
whether the struts are exactly parallel or not. The amount of wash-out
(or wash-in) that the "out of parallelism" would incur is really
inconsequential. I will likely incorporate some method of allowing for
adjustment in the length of the lift struts.
Now, here's a new wrinkle to throw into the discussion:
When adding brakes to the aircraft, it has been suggested to shift the
wheels forward a couple of inches. Without really thinking about this,
the landing gear attach points will no longer line up with the clusters,
or the ash cross pieces. I assume that the attach points remain as
drawn, and the landing gear is modified to move the WHEELS forward by
2". Otherwise the lower attach points for the struts move forward, and
the upper attach points (at the wing spars) move back, for W&B
adjustment, making things even more interesting. So what did those of
you who have completed this stage do?
Bill C.
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: | Parallel struts and Gene's question |
I adjusted the geometry of the gear legs and left the attach points as
designed.
Steve E (out of parallel and didn't even know it)
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
After reading through all the recent postings regarding the dimensions
of the landing gear attach points vs the lift strut attach points (at
the spars), I dug out my copies of the plans (1933-34 improved and 1932
F&G) and looked them over.
The F&G plans DO show the lower cross pieces (1" x 3/4" spruce, not 2" x
3/4" ash) aligned with the clusters on the fuselage sides - at 28 3/4"
between centers. BUT... nowhere in the F&G plans was I able to find the
spacing for the wing spars. (How the heck does anyone manage to build a
plane solely from these plans and feel secure enough to get in it and
fly? Hats off to them.)
And if you look closely at the F&G plans (fig. 6A), the landing gear
attach points do not actually appear to align exactly with the 28 3/4"
centers on the fuselage. The rear attach point looks fine, but the
forward attach point appears to be about a half inch back of center (say
28 1/4").
Since the dimensions are much clearer (relatively speaking) on the
1933-34 improved plans, and they indicate 2" wide ash cross-pieces at 27
1/2" centers, it looks like they would be okay to use as-drawn with
either the split gear of the 33-34 plans (27 1/2") or the straight axle
gear of the 32 F&G plans (28 3/4"... or is that 28 1/4" as it appears
from fig. 6A). Being an engineer, my line of reasoning is always that
one does not change a design without a reason. And it is clear that
certain changes were made between the F&G plans and the "improved"
plans, one of which was to change the size, material and location of
these lower cross pieces. I make the assumption that there was a
reason(s) for these changes, and, based on the successful history of the
revised design, I also make the assumption that the changes were
successful.
My plan is to build my fuselage to the plans and not worry too much
whether the struts are exactly parallel or not. The amount of wash-out
(or wash-in) that the "out of parallelism" would incur is really
inconsequential. I will likely incorporate some method of allowing for
adjustment in the length of the lift struts.
Now, here's a new wrinkle to throw into the discussion:
When adding brakes to the aircraft, it has been suggested to shift the
wheels forward a couple of inches. Without really thinking about this,
the landing gear attach points will no longer line up with the clusters,
or the ash cross pieces. I assume that the attach points remain as
drawn, and the landing gear is modified to move the WHEELS forward by
2". Otherwise the lower attach points for the struts move forward, and
the upper attach points (at the wing spars) move back, for W&B
adjustment, making things even more interesting. So what did those of
you who have completed this stage do?
Bill C.
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: Parallel struts and Gene's question |
Bill,
In reference to your final question, I did not move my wheels forward at all
because I don't think it is really necessary for a couple of reasons. In my
case I will be going with large diameter wheels (21"), and my brake design
is such that it will not have enough stopping power to worry about nose-overs.
I am going with the "drum/band/cable" type brakes that Larry Williams used
on his Aircamper and Dennis Hall used on his Skyscout. I like these because
they look "Pietish" and old fashioned. BTW my struts will be out of parallel
also.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
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 |
|
Jeff (members of the list serve):
This question is in relationship to the mag output on the A-65 Continental
engine. I am very much interested in running a rear strobe and a "few" other
instruments in my Piet. Can you tell me the electrical output of the mags upon
start-up and running. I am interested in using a voltage rectifier running
off a mag which in turns provides a nice trickle charge back to a small motorcycle
12V battery. I am aware of the minimal drain on the battery however, I also
plan on using ring gear and starter to fire up the engine. So any information
as to the output is greatly appreciated. I was under the impression the mag
puts out a lot of charge when starting up and then maintains a 12 volt current.
Right or wrong?
KM Heide
Fargo, ND
---------------------------------
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: Parallel struts and Gene's question |
Bill Church,
I moved my wheels forward a couple of inches, but retained the landing
gear attachment points at the fuselage truss clusters. Somewhere I read
that one should do this when adding brakes, but that was so long ago I
cannot remember the source. My a/c has 6.00 x 6 tires/tubes and very
lightweight Shinn wheels/brakes from a Taylorcraft.This setup has been
entirely satisfactory.
As I told Gene Rambo, my lift struts are not parallel to each other and
nobody (including myself) ever noticed. I'll have to dig out the 1933
plans I used to build mine and take a look at the dimensions. I don't
recall having any difficulty with the plans when I built mine, although
I did make some small changes in several places (eg. the landing gear).
And, if I were to build another Pietenpol, I'd make some more---mainly
to save weight.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
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: Parallel struts and Gene's question |
Just let me jump in one more time in my defense . . . I never have
suggested that I was worried about appearance, or that the struts not
being parallel would have ANY effect on the wing placement, wash in,
wash out, etc. Several people on here have noted that the '33 plans do
indeed add the ash cross pieces (not in the F&G plans) and that the rear
one is forward of the old (F&G) gear rear attach point. The statement
was made that there must have been a reason for the change. I would
agree IF, IF, the location of the cluster of side braces moved along
with it. The '33 plans still show the spruce wedge filler blocks inside
that cluster which are for the purpose of bolting the fitting on,
because the bolts go through the filler blocks. If Bernie intended to
move the rear gear attach point, why not move the cluster location as
well?
I have received the answer to one part of my original question. It does
not appear to make a bit of difference whether the struts are parallel,
as there are, apparently, plenty of airplanes out there with struts that
are not parallel whether the builders were conscious of it during
construction or not.
I would still like to know whether this was a mistake on someone's part
in the drafting, or it was intentional. I am starting to lean toward it
being an error in light of the placement of the cluster and the filler
blocks.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Hansen<mailto:grhans@cable-lynx.net>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Bill Church,
I moved my wheels forward a couple of inches, but retained the landing
gear attachment points at the fuselage truss clusters. Somewhere I read
that one should do this when adding brakes, but that was so long ago I
cannot remember the source. My a/c has 6.00 x 6 tires/tubes and very
lightweight Shinn wheels/brakes from a Taylorcraft.This setup has been
entirely satisfactory.
As I told Gene Rambo, my lift struts are not parallel to each other
and nobody (including myself) ever noticed. I'll have to dig out the
1933 plans I used to build mine and take a look at the dimensions. I
don't recall having any difficulty with the plans when I built mine,
although I did make some small changes in several places (eg. the
landing gear). And, if I were to build another Pietenpol, I'd make some
more---mainly to save weight.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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: | Parallel struts and Gene's question |
Gene,
No need to defend yourself. I don't think anyone is attacking.
I think we were all puzzled by your question.
Personally, I think it must have been intentional, since if you look at
drawing No. 3 of the 33-34 drawing set (improved air camper) on the left
hand side, just below the detail of the drilled lugs for the landing
gear (small photo attached) you will clearly see the rear ash cross
piece sitting to the forward side of the cluster. And the front seat
back nailed to the trailing edge of the ash piece (with a note
clarifying that point). The 27 1/2" dimension for the landing gear
mounting points is also clearly defined in this detail. As I understand
it, these plans were drawn in 1933 by 16 year-old Orrin Hoopman, and
based on measurements taken from an actual Improved Air Camper, as
built. As a draftsman, it would be highly unlikely that anyone would
draw a detail such as that without reason. Based on that, the drawings
most likely show the way it was.
As for a DEFINITIVE answer to whether this was a mistake on someone's
part in the drafting, or it was intentional ... anyone got a Ouija
board?
Bill C.
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: | New Pietenpol book |
Hi all,
Just looking at William Wynne's FlyCorvair website
http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html , and see that William mentions
that in addition to Doc Mosher becoming the new editor of the Brodhead
Pietenpol Association Newsletter (put my money order in the mail today),
there is also a new book about Pietenpols just completed by author Chet
Peek. Anyone out there know any more details, such as when and where it
will be available?
Bill 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: | Parallel struts and Gene's question |
Here's a mistake on my part... I forgot to attach the small photo.
Doh!
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: New Pietenpol book |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
Last I heard, Chet's book will be off the presses in about a month.
I'm not sure how long it will take for it to be distributed, ordering
processes set up, etc., but I believe it should be available well
before Christmas.
I managed to make it in Chet's book in a couple of pictures. I'm not
sure how much information Chet wants out there about the book, so I
won't say anymore, except that everyone on this list will want a copy.
I can't wait to get one.
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
Quoting Bill Church <eng@canadianrogers.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> Just looking at William Wynne's FlyCorvair website
> http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html , and see that William mentions
> that in addition to Doc Mosher becoming the new editor of the Brodhead
> Pietenpol Association Newsletter (put my money order in the mail today),
> there is also a new book about Pietenpols just completed by author Chet
> Peek. Anyone out there know any more details, such as when and where it
> will be available?
>
> Bill C.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question |
Awright Homer, 'splain why the spruce filler blocks are still there!!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church<mailto:eng@canadianrogers.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Here's a mistake on my part... I forgot to attach the small photo.
Doh!
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 |
|
A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
didn't see much difference.
However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
a 10% difference in power.
I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
smooth, mag check before and after was good.
I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of
fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
Any comments?
Dick 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 |
|
I've run auto fuel in several airplanes from an L-19 to a Bonanza and
couldn't tell any difference in power.
Tom
Travis
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 |
|
I've noticed no difference between 100LL and premium auto fuel in the
A-65.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
didn't see much difference.
However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
a 10% difference in power.
I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
smooth, mag check before and after was good.
I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal.
of fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
Any comments?
Dick N.
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell <markb1958@verizon.net>
Well so many other factors would affect that performance that it would
be very difficult to tell. Unless you were absolutely certain the
throttle was opened to the exact same spot both times, it could easily
just be a position different in the throttle.
MMO if I recall correctly does lower the octane rating a bit, but don't
recall how much. We know the 100LL is 100 octane. If you are curious,
run a tank of 93 oct auto fuel through it and see what happens. See if
it improves the performance, but also document the temp, pressure and
density altitude ect to compare later if you want to do more tests. At
that point you have the data from which to work should you choose to
investigate further.
Dick Navratil wrote:
> A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
> auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
> didn't see much difference.
> However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
> opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may
> be a 10% difference in power.
> I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
> getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
> smooth, mag check before and after was good.
> I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal.
> of fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
> Any comments?
> Dick N.
> *
>
>
> *
Message 18
| 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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen@ptialaska.net>
The debate re Mogas vs AVgas is often hot with the other usergroups. Some
love it, some hate it. Bottomline-----Mogas is variable by region and by
season. Mogas is in a state of change with the addition of alcohol. AVgas
has yet to have this potential problem. Probably will in the future with
the addition of alcohol. Alcohol in fuel can affect gaskets and seals in
the fuel system. Winter formulas have different vapor pressures in Mogas.
Test for yourself, if the Mogas you elect to use doesn't evaporate clean (no
greasy residue) in clear glass dish, you may want to try this test with your
local AVgas supply. Here in AK, AVgas is about $4.40/gallon. Even flying a
lot of hours like ie. 200hrs/year at 7 gal/hr, that about $1400/yr pricing
vs Mogas. Most of us have 10+ times that amount in our planes, most
aircraft accidents are result of fuel problems, not an issue of plus or
minus 10% power.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark Blackwell
> <markb1958@verizon.net>
>
> Well so many other factors would affect that performance that it would be
> very difficult to tell. Unless you were absolutely certain the throttle
> was opened to the exact same spot both times, it could easily just be a
> position different in the throttle.
>
> MMO if I recall correctly does lower the octane rating a bit, but don't
> recall how much. We know the 100LL is 100 octane. If you are curious,
> run a tank of 93 oct auto fuel through it and see what happens. See if it
> improves the performance, but also document the temp, pressure and density
> altitude ect to compare later if you want to do more tests. At that point
> you have the data from which to work should you choose to investigate
> further.
>
> Dick Navratil wrote:
>> A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
>> auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
>> didn't see much difference.
>> However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
>> opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
>> a 10% difference in power.
>> I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
>> getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
>> smooth, mag check before and after was good.
>> I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of
>> fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
>> Any comments?
>> Dick N.
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
Message 19
| 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 |
|
I should have also added to my post that the auto fuel I have used does
not have ethanol. I also realize that possibly an old tach might not be
the most accurate. Also, the sod runway after a few days of rain might
require a bit more takeoff run.
Dick N.
Message 20
| 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: electric tachs |
In a message dated 8/28/2006 10:17:49 AM Central Standard Time,
jboatri@emory.edu writes:
How can these be installed so that a mag check can be done? That is,
in one of the positions when the mag switch is turned to "Left" or
"Right", won't the tach just go to zero because it's mag has been
turned off?
Jeff,
IMHO I wouldn't want ANYTHING to be attached to the mags, simply because
they are the life line of the engine. If the tach would short out, or something
would short the wiring, it would probably cause the mag to fail. Just simply
not worth the risk.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Message 21
| 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: Electric tach |
In a message dated 8/28/2006 1:56:10 PM Central Standard Time,
kmheidecpo@yahoo.com writes:
Can you tell me the electrical output of the mags upon start-up and running.
I am interested in using a voltage rectifier running off a mag which in turns
provides a nice trickle charge back to a small motorcycle 12V battery. I am
aware of the minimal drain on the battery however, I also plan on using ring
gear and starter to fire up the engine. So any information as to the output is
greatly appreciated. I was under the impression the mag puts out a lot of charge
when starting up and then maintains a 12 volt current. Right or wrong?
Keep the mags totally independent of any other portion of the electrical
system. Voltage is different than current. Mags put out a very high voltage,
which causes the spark to jump across the electrodes of the spark plugs.
However, the current is very low. You need current to charge a battery, and if
you
rob the mags of their limited current, you are asking for trouble.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
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! --
|