Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:46 AM - Re: Electric tach ()
2. 07:03 AM - Elect tach (lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan))
3. 08:33 AM - Re: fuel (Gene & Tammy)
4. 11:46 AM - Re: fuel (Gordon Bowen)
5. 12:33 PM - Re: fuel (hvandervoo@aol.com)
6. 12:57 PM - Re: fuel (Jeff Boatright)
7. 01:14 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Bill Church)
8. 01:47 PM - Re: fuel (walt evans)
9. 05:04 PM - Re: fuel (Gordon Bowen)
10. 06:08 PM - electrical tachs (Douwe Blumberg)
11. 06:18 PM - Re: Elect tach (Rcaprd@aol.com)
12. 06:28 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (Don Emch)
13. 06:58 PM - Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question (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 |
|
Because the mags are replacing the coil and battery;I may be wrong in
this but I believe the mag puts out about 200v at start up.I have not
checked this but it seems like something I've heard someone say along
the way.I don't have the spec on the mags in front of me at this time so
I'm only guessing.But it makes sence for start up it would have to be
somewhere around the same as what a coil would put out.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd@aol.com
Sent: August 29, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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
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: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
I am using a Westach electric tach that I ordered from Wicks. It has a
small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is self contained
and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power. I don't have the
catalog in front of me now, but I think it was around $120 back
then-kind of expensive, but I felt it was worth it for not having to buy
and mess with a drive cable and one or two 90d angle drives. Chet
Peek was featured in the last news letter, so I'll bet he will be at
Brodhead next year selling and signing his book. I have 3 or 4 of his
books, I think I will bring all of them and have him sign them all. Mo
gas vs. av gas....I haven't flown for 4 years, but the only difference I
ever noticed ( beside cost ) in an 0-300 engine was after about 10 hours
with 100LL, the plugs begin to led fowl. Leon S.
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 |
|
For what it's worth. I contacted EAA today and asked what their
position is on using auto fuel in a Continental A65. Their reply was.
"The FAA has approved the use of auto fuel in the C 65 and we find no
fault in using auto fuel. In fact, we have the STC for auto fuel for
those that fly standard
catagory aircraft. The STC for each airplane costs $1.00 per horse
power." Being an experimental it does not need the STC.
Gene----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
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 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 |
|
Hmmm. Let's do the math. C-65 at max. 5 gal/hr. Average flying time
per year 100 hrs (thats 2 hrs/week year around, and that's a lot). 500
gals fuel per year. Average savings Mogas at $3.00/gal. vs AVgas at
$4.00/gal. $1.00/gal. $500/year. Probably more like $100/yr savings
for most of us due to limited flying season north of the Rio Grande.
Heck, I waste almost that much in Skoal droppings. Known to have
squandered that much in spilled liquid refreshments at the Down East
Saloon as the Seahawks are getting worked over by the Steelers. Have
hid at least 5 times that much in new airplane toys from sceptical
tightwad Wifey.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene & Tammy
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel
For what it's worth. I contacted EAA today and asked what their
position is on using auto fuel in a Continental A65. Their reply was.
"The FAA has approved the use of auto fuel in the C 65 and we find no
fault in using auto fuel. In fact, we have the STC for auto fuel for
those that fly standard
catagory aircraft. The STC for each airplane costs $1.00 per horse
power." Being an experimental it does not need the STC.
Gene----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
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.
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
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 |
|
Dick,
Here is a table with energy densities of different fuels.
Auto gas holds more energy by volume than Avgas ( but less by weight )
If everything is equal, OAT, humidity & altitude.
If you set for a lean mixture on Avgas, when switching from Avgas to Auto gas you
will run slightly richer on Auto gas and perhaps see a drop in RPM (mixture
being a fuction of volume)
If you run and tune the mixture on auto gas and than switch to Avgas you might
run too lean.
Since we run with relatively (too) rich mixtures I doubt you will notice a real
difference.
Pound for pound there is a 9 % difference.
Liquid Fuel MJ/litreLitre/TonneGJ/tonne
LPGpropane25.3196049.6
LPGbutane27.7175049.1
LPGmixture25.7192849.6
Gasolineaviation33.0141249.6
Gasolineautomotive34.2136046.4
Kerosenepower37.5123046.1
Keroseneturbine fuel36.8126146.4
Kerosenelighting36.6127046.5
Heating Oil 37.3123846.2
Diesel Oilautomotive38.6118245.6
Diesel Oilindustrial39.6113544.9
Fuel Oillow sulphur39.7111044.1
Fuel Oilhigh sulphur40.8105042.9
Refinery Fuel 40.9105042.9
Naphtha 31.41534481
Lubricants 38.8112043.4
Bitumen 44.098142.7
Solvents 34.4122944.0
Waxes 38.8118045.8
Crude Oil 38.7116044.9
Ethanol 23.4126629.6
LNG-160C & 300kPa25.0217454.4
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: horzpool@goldengate.net
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 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 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 |
|
A consideration is that it's a real problem getting avgas out to our
gas strip and there are NO airports with avgas AND turf runways
nearby. The local gas station is 1 block from the runway. Do the
math. ;)
At 10:45 AM -0800 8/29/06, Gordon Bowen wrote:
>Hmmm. Let's do the math. C-65 at max. 5 gal/hr. Average flying
>time per year 100 hrs (thats 2 hrs/week year around, and that's a
>lot). 500 gals fuel per year. Average savings Mogas at $3.00/gal.
>vs AVgas at $4.00/gal. $1.00/gal. $500/year. Probably more
>like $100/yr savings for most of us due to limited flying season
>north of the Rio Grande. Heck, I waste almost that much in Skoal
>droppings. Known to have squandered that much in spilled liquid
>refreshments at the Down East Saloon as the Seahawks are getting
>worked over by the Steelers. Have hid at least 5 times that much in
>new airplane toys from sceptical tightwad Wifey.
>Gordon
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri@emory.edu
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: | Parallel struts and Gene's question |
Well, Gene,
It looks to me like the attach bolts for the rear landing gear/lift
struts will still pass through the 1/8" ply gusset plates and the spruce
filler blocks. Granted, they will be at the forward end of the gusset,
which looks "unusual", but there, nonetheless. I agree that this looks
like it may have been an afterthought. We do know that Bernard kept
trying different things with this old design, so that might be the case.
***Just speculation on my part here, but MAYBE in the development of the
split gear, Bernard found that it was somehow "better" with the rear
attach points at 27 1/2" instead of 28 3/4" (for whatever reason), but
found that it worked fine with the fuselage sides left as-is, and just
beefed-up, widened and shifted the bottom cross piece.***
As one more piece of evidence that the 27 1/2" dimension was not just a
slip of the pencil, look at drawing No. 1, on the right hand side, more
than half way down. The detail is labelled is the "constructional view
of the front cockpit", and it clearly shows the "white ash cross strut"
at the forward end of the gusset plate. (small drawing attached)
IF the 27 1/2" is a mistake, it's a mistake that got repeated in at
least four places on the drawings. I believe that the 27 1/2" dimension
was most likely the way Bernard built the first (or second, or whatever)
Improved Air Camper, and the drawings were made to reflect the details
of that plane. But that's just my opinion - nobody needs to agree with
me - I won't be offended. And if anyone has a more compelling argument
(or even some facts), I might change my opinion.
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's
even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson
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 |
|
Not sure if this was brought up on this thread. But higher or lower
octane gas has the same power. Only reason for the higher octane is to
run in higher compression engines. So the fuel won't pre ignite due to
the diesel effect of heat being caused by compressing the fuel/air
mixture. I'm flying an A-65 which has a relitively low Compression Ratio
of 6.3. So to me the octane is not the issue.
At the point that I had the engine on the plane and on the gear, was fun
to run the engine in the yard and blow the leaves around. Had a gallon
or two of auto fuel in the tank. This sat in the system over the
winter in the garage.
In the spring, for whatever reason, I shut off the fuel and took the
bowl off the gascollator. The top rubber gasket was all puffed up and
kind of gooey.
If it did this with a certified gascollator, what's it doing to my
rubber tipped float needle from 1940's technology.
For the little difference in price per gallon, I'll stick with avgas.
To much volitile stuff in auto gas. Take two shallow bowls and put
about 1/2 cup of each gas in different bowls. Next day the auto gas is
dry,,,the avgas is still there. Go figure.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:26 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 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 |
|
I can answer partially the swollen gaskets question. Mogas has been
using aromatic hydrocarbons like xylene and napthalene since they
dropped tetraethyl lead as the antiknock additive. These high mol.
weight aromatics change the partial pressures needed to vaporize the
fuel compared to the normal fuel C-8 aliphatic hydrocarbon (heptane's
first cousin), thus antiknock. These aromatics are added at diff rates
depending on the region of the country and the season of the year.
That's why the refineries are complaining about the EPA and State rules
on Mogas formulas and why refineries are overloaded. Too many formulas
for Mogas. Old leaded fuels didn't have these aromatics. Even
100LowLead AVgas doesn't. Problem is these aromatic hydrocarbons are
dandy solvents for rubber gaskets of various flavors. Modern cars have
modern plastics like teflon or viton seals in their fuel systems. Thus
the puffy rubber gaskets in your old C-85. Old low and slow aeroplanes
have to think twice about putting Mogas in an older fuel system.
Alcohol and other ketones that are derived from corn/grain fermentation
added to Mogas will only make the stuff a better solvent, thus future
problems on down the road for all airplanes when they allow alcohol in
the 100LL.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel
Not sure if this was brought up on this thread. But higher or lower
octane gas has the same power. Only reason for the higher octane is to
run in higher compression engines. So the fuel won't pre ignite due to
the diesel effect of heat being caused by compressing the fuel/air
mixture. I'm flying an A-65 which has a relitively low Compression Ratio
of 6.3. So to me the octane is not the issue.
At the point that I had the engine on the plane and on the gear, was
fun to run the engine in the yard and blow the leaves around. Had a
gallon or two of auto fuel in the tank. This sat in the system over
the winter in the garage.
In the spring, for whatever reason, I shut off the fuel and took the
bowl off the gascollator. The top rubber gasket was all puffed up and
kind of gooey.
If it did this with a certified gascollator, what's it doing to my
rubber tipped float needle from 1940's technology.
For the little difference in price per gallon, I'll stick with avgas.
To much volitile stuff in auto gas. Take two shallow bowls and put
about 1/2 cup of each gas in different bowls. Next day the auto gas is
dry,,,the avgas is still there. Go figure.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:26 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.
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
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: | electrical tachs |
I'm using an electrical tach running off one mag. Tony Bingelis says
it's okay as long as you install a fuse (can't remember the size) in
line so that if the instrument should ever short out, it couldn't affect
your mag.
I'm running a Ford with two mags, and there is no observable difference
in rpms between one mag and both. I think the plugs are so close
together that the combustion is identical either way.
Douwe
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 |
|
In a message dated 8/29/2006 9:05:40 AM Central Standard Time,
lshutks@webtv.net writes:
It has a small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is self
contained and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power.
I like this method Much better than something that robs power from the
mags...however, I still preferr the old tach cable / driven tachs - just don
't use
any 90=BA angle drives...keep the cable straight, and very little bends, to
the
tach.
Chuck G.
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: Parallel struts and Gene's question |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Don Emch" <EmchAir@aol.com>
I know this has been said many times before, but...if you try to follow the plans
as closely as you can, you really will build a good airplane. Mine is to the
plans with the exception of the A-65, nose tank, moving the wheels forward
1" (geometry in the gear only) and the wing back 4". If I were to build another,
(the thought has crossed my mind) I think the only changes I would make would
be to try to build one with a Model A straight off of the plans. I would
never try to force my opinion on someone else, it is just that I really like the
airplane and how it flies. Sorry...I know it's been said many times.
Don E.
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=58357#58357
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 |
I measured the distance between the struts on my plane this evening. The
measurements I made were between the centers of the attach bolts. At the lower
end, where the gear lugs are, they are 27 7/8" on center. At the upper end
they are 28 7/8" on center. They are One Inch out of Parallel. I have never
realized they were not parallel. It seems Gene has come up with an anomaly in
the plans that very few folks were aware of. Congrats, Gene !!
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! --
|