Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:36 AM - Aileron Bellcrank Fit (David)
2. 04:43 AM - Re: [Bulk] Rv-List Power Required (LarryRobertHelming)
3. 05:41 AM - Re: [Bulk] Rv-List Power Required (Alex Peterson)
4. 06:32 AM - EGT increase (Jason Sneed)
5. 06:34 AM - Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Gary Zilik's engine problem update (Gary Zilik)
6. 06:41 AM - Re: Antenna location? (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
7. 07:03 AM - Re: [Bulk] Rv-List Power Required (Skylor Piper)
8. 07:16 AM - Re: EGT increase (Skylor Piper)
9. 07:18 AM - Re: EGT increase (Scott Bilinski)
10. 07:30 AM - Re: Aileron Bellcrank Fit (Dean)
11. 08:53 AM - Re: EGT increase (Mike Robertson)
12. 09:02 AM - Re: Aileron Bellcrank Fit (Doug Gray)
13. 02:47 PM - Re: air/oil separator (richard dudley)
14. 03:28 PM - Cleaning an engine (Travis Hamblen)
15. 04:13 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (Louis Willig)
16. 04:17 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (Louis Willig)
17. 04:24 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (Stein Bruch)
18. 05:57 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (mailindex@juno.com)
19. 06:37 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (Jack Ford)
20. 06:41 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (Travis Hamblen)
21. 06:45 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (RV_8 Pilot)
22. 07:01 PM - EGT(ease) (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
23. 07:27 PM - Re: EGT(ease) (linn walters)
24. 07:32 PM - Bending the elevator tabs (David Fenstermacher)
25. 07:48 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (Kosta Lewis)
26. 08:45 PM - Re: [Bulk] Rv-List Power Required (Ed Holyoke)
27. 08:57 PM - Polishing Aluminum (Amit Dagan)
28. 09:08 PM - Re: EGT(ease) (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
29. 09:37 PM - Re: Polishing Aluminum (JOHN STARN)
30. 09:46 PM - Re: Cleaning an engine (Vanremog@aol.com)
31. 09:47 PM - Re: Polishing Aluminum (Scott Jackson)
32. 10:02 PM - Non-a/c related Items for sale-DELETE if not interested (Vanremog@aol.com)
33. 10:03 PM - Re: Polishing Aluminum (JOHN STARN)
34. 10:05 PM - Re: [Bulk] Rv-List Power Required (Ed Holyoke)
35. 10:17 PM - Re: [Bulk] Rv-List Power Required (Jim Oke)
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: | Aileron Bellcrank Fit |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David" <davewendi@comcast.net>
I am fitting the aileron bellcranks to the wing. (RV-6A)
1) Should the assembly of bellcrank, spacers and washers
be as snug as possible between the two pieces of angle?
2) How tight does one torque the locknut on the bellcrank
axle?
3) Should the inside portion of the bearing be frozen when
everything is tightened up?
Thanks.
David Kirby
RV-6AQB
Griffin, GA.
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: Rv-List Power Required |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
(((((((((comments embedded))))))))))
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I read it again (and again and again), and I think that what Kevin said
> was that 157 kts cas (calibrated airspeed which is indicated airspeed
> corrected for installation errors, if I've got it right) is equal to 220
> kts tas (true airspeed) at 22k ft. At sea level cas and tas are equal
> (given standard temperature), right? He said that drag is roughly the
> same for cas at differing altitudes and that power required is
> proportional to drag times tas. I believe I understand what he said and
> I can't fault his math, but I don't understand why it would be so.
>
> Lift has to overcome gravity and thrust has to overcome drag at any
> altitude. An engine has less ability to produce power at higher
> altitude, but why should more power, assuming the engine could be
> convinced to make it, be required to overcome, what I expect (perhaps
> unrealistically), to be lower drag in the thinner air at higher
> altitude? To me it's counterintuitive that drag would increase with
> altitude. That's the part that I don't get.
>
> I don't have any math to back it up, but shouldn't parasitic drag
> decrease in thinner air? I've heard it said that induced drag is the
> smaller part of total drag. Does the induced drag increase a lot (40
> percent or more) as the wing struggles to make up the lift that is lost
> through lower air density? Would this be because of the necessity of a
> higher angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift?
>
> Could it be not entirely an increase in drag but, in part, a decrease in
> prop efficiency that is causing this effect? (((((((( That is how I see
it.)))))))) A prop is less efficient at
> higher altitude, sure, but is it 40 percent less efficient? ((((((((could
be.........as we go even higher eventually it has no air to pull through. I
don't have enough time and motivation to try and figure this out myself
cause I am trying to get ready for my first flight coming up in a couple
months.))))))))))
>
> When I said that Kevin knows more about this than I do, I wasn't being
> facetious. I genuinely want to understand the principles involved.(((((((I
know. I think Kevin is a knowledgeable person. He might not of explained
this so us less knowledgeable can understand. But if you keep after it, I
am sure he or someone will. Thanks for pursuing this.......Indiana
Larry)))))))))))
>
> Seeking knowledge,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Pardue
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
> >
> > Kevin,
> >
> > I expect that you know a lot more about it than I do, but I just don't
> > understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes more power to go
> > the same speed at higher altitude?
> >
>
> Read it again. Kevin was comparing to a lower speed because that is
> what he
> had data on.
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://n5lp.net
>
>
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: | Rv-List Power Required |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> 10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you
> either need a
> bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>
There are indeed free lunches with respect to flying higher. Many factors
apply, but most normally aspirated piston planes get their best economy
(which is another way of saying speed per gallon) at something around 7 - 8
thousand feet. Obviously, if a trip is only 50 miles, there may not be a
net benefit. Jets run high because for the same indicated airspeed, which
approximately translates to power needed, they have a much higher TAS. I'll
let the jet jockeys chime in here, but the fuel burns in jets go way up at
lower altitudes, TAS the same.
I will run some tests soon, setting some constant power (this means basic
power settings are the same, and fuel flow and egt relative to peak must be
identical), fly a high and low altitude run, and take data. A complication
to this is that the temperature will not be the same at, for example, 2000'
vs 7500'. In any case, the output of this test will be to calculate TAS
based upon temperature, IAS, barometer and altitude.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 558 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between my lowest EGT and
highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance FI system. This
lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and around 7.8 if I
operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my number 2 cylinder
started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal and the difference
between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees. Needless to say I now
burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like it. I first suspected
a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector (looked fine) and
cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
After putting everything back together I still had the same problem. I
removed the flow divider and inspected it, found nothing... So I have
shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to check it out and update
it with a screen.
Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go up 50 degrees all
of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I would guess the EGT
would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug stopped firing, but I
do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom and an old mag
running the top.
Any ideas welcome!
Jason Sneed
n242ds@cox.net
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 |
|
\"rv-list@matronics.com\"" <rv-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Gary Zilik's engine problem update |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gary Zilik <zilik@excelgeo.com>
bmarvel@cox.net wrote:
> A few questions:
>
> 1. How many hours have you flown this engine?
The engine has ~700 hours since overhaul and ~500 hours since new
Millennium cylinders where installed. This is another story in itself.
> 2. Has this problem occurred periodically throughout its lifetime on
> your aircraft or is it relatively new?
The problem cropped up in July of this year. Previous to that there were
no problems.
> 3. If the latter, when did it start in terms of anything that you
> changed, adjusted or replaced on the engine or in the fuel system?
No changes were made previous to the episodes. After the July roughness
I pulled the cowl when we got home and checked it over pretty carefully.
The inlet ramp on #2 cyl was cracked and had lost a football shaped
chunk about 1.5 in
2 in area. I repaired the hole using 500 mph tape
(aluminum tape used on Boeings) and intended to repair the baffle
properly at annual time. It turns out the 500 mph tape could not
withstand the heat and pressure of the cooling plenum and failed. After
removal of the baffle for repair it was noted that the football shaped
hole had also allowed the side of the baffle to push away from the
cylinder head when under pressure. I'm leaning towards the failed baffle
causing hot spots on the cylinder in question leading towards
detonation. I really think the baffle failure and the first roughness
episode came at the same time. The previouse episodes of roughness
always happend at higher altitudes where the engine cannot generate as
much power and enriching the mixture solved the problem. On the last
episode it was a coold day, high pressure in the area and full power.
Enrichening the mixture helped at first and then it slowley started
getting worse. Of course the cylinder in question was not the one my
single egt/cht is installed on and all readings were normal. So at this
point I have a strange looking piston and plug in number 2, failed
baffles on #2, leaned for cruse at 6000' 21 map 2500 rpm and I then
increased power for the chase. I think (i really don't remember) that I
violated the cardinal rule to increase the mixture before pushing in the
throttle. The roughness started soon after and then I pushed the mixture
in. As I said, it helped at first but only got worse from then on.
I thank everyone for the suggestions I have gotten so far. There are a
lot of great minds on the lists.
Gary
>
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: Antenna location? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/04 1:20:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
n184da@volcano.net writes:
> I feel that I need as much distance from the
> >com ant. as I can get. What about on the fuse top, between the firewall
> >and the panel?
> >John D
> >RV-4, N204CP
> >Salinas, CA
> >EAA204
> >
>
John,
I don't think the GPS antenna needs to be more than say 18 inches from the
COM antenna given the great difference in frequency, but that location works
fine for the GPS antenna.
I have a Garmin 295 panel mounted.=A0 The portable antenna off the back of the
295 sits horizontally on the glareshield (inside the cockpit) on a BNC
bulkhead connector, and gives excellent results.=A0
A 6 inch length of RG-400 was made up to extend the antenna from the back of
the 295 up to the bulkhead connector.
This antenna installation was really easy.=A0 Only one hole for the BNC
connector drilled with a unibit up from the bottom.=A0 No messy antenna wire to
run.=A0
And the 295 and its antenna are easy to remove from the airplane for land
use.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
N766DH (Flying since July)
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 |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=ZhYVNJI8VKqWf8SVnOZ3hdZEPPbBy0rvvxmg78ghne09ZmHoDtkD865H6IVwDE6NtupctQqLba5D+76EKtrpwI+EKHV781q8j+30ZQJm0zMRYcqWdW2eWiaV/5QdCvGIkHRsDBpt0oM6VmdmXMABxz8d6Ex/gQbpeRvIqzytvW4=
;
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
I sent this reply yesterday, but of course, it
bounced...
Ed,
Perhaps I can shed some light on this...
It all really boils down to exactly what "work" and
"power" are...
You are correct that drag decreases with altitude,
hence the reason that, as Kevin explained, drag for a
given CAS remains fairly constant regardless of
altitude. Think about it...if you fly sea level at
160 kts CAS, your TRUE airspeed is 160 kts. However,
at 20,000 ft, 160 kts CAS is realy around 220 kts
TRUE. So, if the drag is constant at a given CAS,
regardless of altitude, then you are flying faster at
20,000 ft than sea level, with the same drag. Thus,
for the same THRUST, you can fly 60 KTS faster at
20,00o ft. Speed for free, right?
Sort of...
Thrust is defined as a force. Force is not the same
as "work" or "power". Physics text books define
"work" as "force times distance" i.e. 10 lbs x 10
feet.
Physics books also define "power" as "work over time"
or "force times distance over time". Therefore, power
is the amount of work that can be completed in a given
amount of time. So, if you apply 10 lbs of force to an
object while you push it 10 feet in 5 seconds, you are
apply twice as much "power" than if you can apply 10
pounds of force while pushing it 10 feet in 10
seconds.
Consider these definitions, then consider the airplane
example again. As I stated in the above example, it
takes the same amount of thrust or force to move the
airplane at 160 kts CAS at sea level as it does at
20,000 feet. The difference is that at 20,000 feet,
the TAS is 60 kts faster, thus is takes 1.4 times as
much POWER to apply the same thrust.
Keep this in mind, however: Since drag at a given air
density increases with the square of the speed, and
power at a given thrust increases proportionally with
speed, it takes 8 times the power to double the speed
at a given altitude! That is the real reason why
aircraft "perform" better at higher altitude. In the
previous example, it only takes 1.4 times as much
power to fly 220 kts at 20,000 ft than it does to fly
160 kts at sea level. To fly 220 kts at sea level
would require almost 4 times as much power!
Skylor
RV-8 QB
Under Construction
--- Ed Holyoke <bicyclop@pacbell.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke"
> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Kevin,
>
> I expect that you know a lot more about it than I
> do, but I just don't
> understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes
> more power to go
> the same speed at higher altitude?
>
> I always thought (perhaps erroneously) that the
> thinner air meant less
> drag and that the reason our normally aspirated
> birds were slower up
> high was because the power available decreased more
> rapidly than the
> drag. I was also under the impression that we go
> fast down low because
> the extra power available overcomes the extra drag
> of the thicker air.
>
> This idea has been re-enforced over the years by
> watching field goals
> being kicked at extremely long distances in Denver
> which I (and the TV
> announcers) attributed to thinner air at high
> altitude.
>
> I always thought that was the reason people
> turbocharge piston airplanes
> and fly at high altitudes. It can't be for lessened
> fuel burn since you
> gotta keep the mixture pretty rich in a turbocharged
> airplane to keep
> the cht's and tit's down, don't you?
>
> Confused,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Kevin Horton
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by:
> smoothweasel@juno.com
> >
> >
> >Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an
> estimated HP that would
> >be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS
> at say 22000ft. I
> >have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna
> go faster and higher
> >but I don't want the complications of a Turbo
> system. I have some
> ideas
> >bur I don't know how much power I will need at this
> ALT.
> >
> >Weasel RV-4
> >Brooksville Ms
> >
>
> The CAS would be about 157 kt at this condition.
> The drag at a given
> CAS is relatively independent of altitude, as long
> as the Mach number
> is low enough so that Mach effects aren't coming
> into play. The
> power required is proportional to the drag times the
> TAS. So, the
> power required to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft would
> be about 220/157 =
> 1.4 times as much as the power required to go 157 kt
> TAS at sea level.
>
> Assuming a Rocket has similar drag to the RV-8, I
> estimate it would
> take about 110 hp to go 157 kt TAS at sea level
> (based on Van's perf
> specs for top speed, with speed varying as the cube
> root of power),
> and about 154 hp to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft.
> That doesn't sound
> like a lot of power, until you realize that the air
> density is only
> 50% of what it is at sea level. This calculation
> also assumes that
> the prop efficiency at 22,000 ft is the same as a
> Hartzell at sea
> level.
>
> Good luck.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
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 |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=1jmVXwjfT14MK1plKxWhd+ziCVFCv3LGSnH081TgBArvGdD+apZVS6s+Qm7b0GVDlOxyhh88CkYBobdtoX38w+Y3urlHJXt7Kpy/0r1XoqBQ45/9Pjsup6Sftr+e6cA1muhjXC8X1kjWa2fH+1bd5OhkQRhNPy0YO3c+leVuAgI=
;
| Subject: | Re: EGT increase |
--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
How much do your EGT's rise during a mag check?
That's how much they should rise when a plug fails...
--- Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed
> <n242ds@cox.net>
>
> I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between
> my lowest EGT and
> highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance
> FI system. This
> lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and
> around 7.8 if I
> operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my
> number 2 cylinder
> started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal
> and the difference
> between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees.
> Needless to say I now
> burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like
> it. I first suspected
> a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector
> (looked fine) and
> cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
>
> After putting everything back together I still had
> the same problem. I
> removed the flow divider and inspected it, found
> nothing... So I have
> shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to
> check it out and update
> it with a screen.
>
> Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go
> up 50 degrees all
> of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I
> would guess the EGT
> would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug
> stopped firing, but I
> do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom
> and an old mag
> running the top.
>
> Any ideas welcome!
>
>
> Jason Sneed
> n242ds@cox.net
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> by the
> Admin.
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://my.yahoo.com
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: | Re: EGT increase |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
EGT spread from cylinder to cylinder is not important. What is important is
when each cylinder reaches peak EGT. You want them to all peak at the same
time, they will never peak at the same temp.....well almost never. Have you
balanced your injectors? I have the same set up as you and have balanced
the injectors so the cylinders peak close to the same time, last time I
checked, 2 cylinders peaked at 8.0 GPH and 2 peaked at 8.1 GPH. Cant get
any better than that. Call Don at AFP he will tell you the same thing but
in greater detail.
At 08:32 AM 12/3/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
>
>I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between my lowest EGT and
>highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance FI system. This
>lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and around 7.8 if I
>operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my number 2 cylinder
>started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal and the difference
>between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees. Needless to say I now
>burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like it. I first suspected
>a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector (looked fine) and
>cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
>
>After putting everything back together I still had the same problem. I
>removed the flow divider and inspected it, found nothing... So I have
>shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to check it out and update
>it with a screen.
>
>Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go up 50 degrees all
>of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I would guess the EGT
>would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug stopped firing, but I
>do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom and an old mag
>running the top.
>
>Any ideas welcome!
>
>
>Jason Sneed
>n242ds@cox.net
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: Aileron Bellcrank Fit |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dean" <dvanwinkle@royell.net>
David
Question 1, the answer is yes
Question 2, use standard torque for the bolt in question.
Question 3, yes, the inner brass bushing is clamped in place by torquing the
bolt, and should not be free to rotate. It is the sacrificial material in
the joint and the bellcrank should be free to rotate about it.
Dean Van Winkle
RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
----- Original Message -----
From: "David" <davewendi@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Aileron Bellcrank Fit
> --> RV-List message posted by: "David" <davewendi@comcast.net>
>
> I am fitting the aileron bellcranks to the wing. (RV-6A)
>
> 1) Should the assembly of bellcrank, spacers and washers
> be as snug as possible between the two pieces of angle?
>
> 2) How tight does one torque the locknut on the bellcrank
> axle?
>
> 3) Should the inside portion of the bearing be frozen when
> everything is tightened up?
>
>
> Thanks.
> David Kirby
> RV-6AQB
> Griffin, GA.
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Jason,
I recently had a similar experience but it was with the #4 cylinder and on
an O-320 engine with the AFP fuel injection system. During a normal flight
the CHT started dropping while the EGT started climbing. As I would richen
the mixture the CHT and EGT would go down then the EGT would start climbing
back up. We tore everything apart thinking it was either the valves or the
injectors. We even tore the flow divider apart. After finding nothing we
did a borescope inspection of the cylinder. We never found anything wrong.
So I tried changing the coils around on the Pasma Electronic Ignition.
Nothing. After we put everything back together and did a run-up I now find
the the EGTs are normal but the #4 CHT is down about 25 degrees from the
other three cylinders.
The engine is running fine and strong. It is just that one cylinder is
running 25 degrees lower than it used to. Needless to say we are keeping an
eye on and and, if the weather will give us a break, will continue flying
it.
I will be interested to see if AFP finds anything with the flow divider.
Mike Robertson
>From: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: EGT increase
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:32:19 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed <n242ds@cox.net>
>
>I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between my lowest EGT and
>highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance FI system. This
>lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and around 7.8 if I
>operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my number 2 cylinder
>started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal and the difference
>between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees. Needless to say I now
>burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like it. I first suspected
>a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector (looked fine) and
>cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
>
>After putting everything back together I still had the same problem. I
>removed the flow divider and inspected it, found nothing... So I have
>shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to check it out and update
>it with a screen.
>
>Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go up 50 degrees all
>of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I would guess the EGT
>would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug stopped firing, but I
>do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom and an old mag
>running the top.
>
>Any ideas welcome!
>
>
>Jason Sneed
>n242ds@cox.net
>
>
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: Aileron Bellcrank Fit |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
Please note this part differs significantly between the RV-6 to the RV-9. The
'6 does not have a
bush bearing but the answer to Q3 is yes.
Doug Gray
Dean wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dean" <dvanwinkle@royell.net>
>
> David
>
> Question 1, the answer is yes
>
> Question 2, use standard torque for the bolt in question.
>
> Question 3, yes, the inner brass bushing is clamped in place by torquing the
> bolt, and should not be free to rotate. It is the sacrificial material in
> the joint and the bellcrank should be free to rotate about it.
>
> Dean Van Winkle
> RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David" <davewendi@comcast.net>
> To: "RV-List" <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Aileron Bellcrank Fit
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "David" <davewendi@comcast.net>
>>
>>I am fitting the aileron bellcranks to the wing. (RV-6A)
>>
>>1) Should the assembly of bellcrank, spacers and washers
>> be as snug as possible between the two pieces of angle?
>>
>>2) How tight does one torque the locknut on the bellcrank
>> axle?
>>
>>3) Should the inside portion of the bearing be frozen when
>> everything is tightened up?
>>
>>
>>Thanks.
>>David Kirby
>>RV-6AQB
>>Griffin, GA.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: air/oil separator |
--> RV-List message posted by: richard dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Hi Wheeler,
You mention the "bilinski mod" to an ACS air/oil separator. Would you
elaborate on the "bilinski mod"? $38 for an air/oil separator, even if
you have to do some modifications, seems pretty reasonable if it does
the job.
Thanks in advance.
Richard Dudley
-6A re-assembling at the airport
Wheeler North wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
>
>Well,
>
>the ACS $38 air/oil separator I orignally installed never seemed to work
>very well, so I bought another one and did the bilinski mod and so far have
>had nary a drop out the breather, nor any anything on the belly.
>
>Cut the old one open to check it out and found they had in fact welded the
>inlet and outlet such that there was little to no interior tube projection.
>I'm guessing the welder has no idea what a wing or an engine is?
>
>But, for $38, plus a few square inches of SS screen and two SS scrubbers it
>sure beats a $300 M-20 empty can.
>
>Think ACS will take the old 800 hours, cut open one back, and give me 30 or
>so free aircraft belly washes?
>
>If you have one of these, on both units the inlet tube is 3" total length,
>and the outlet is 3.5". They seem to be welded in any old way, but if you
>were to measure it from the outside you could tell if there is any overlap
>of the tubes internally, which is good.
>
>The old one I have is has little projection inside, but the new one has the
>tubes just overlapped, but in both cases the tubes are the same total length
>listed above. Another way of saying this is on the old one from inlet end to
>outlet end is nine inches, but the new one it is 7 inches yet all the
>relative parts are the same. Plus its just an empty can so there isn't a lot
>of surface area for the oil fog to condense on.
>
>If I were to modify the bilinski mod, I would add two things. One an
>interior stand pipe for the oil return with a bottom quick drain for
>moisture condensation. And two, a 1/2 psi pressure relief valve in the event
>the outlet gets plugged anywhere, anyhow.
>
>W
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
I was planning to clean my engine at the next oil change and wanted to know
if anyone had any advice. I have some Oil Eater which works pretty well on
the oily belly but didn=92t know if there was something better for the engine
itself or a preferred method. The engine isn=92t really nasty or anything,
just VERY dusty and a little grimy in places. Any recommendations on
cleaning the engine would be appreciated.
Travis
RV-6A @ VGT
Do not archive
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net>
At 06:27 PM 12/3/2004, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
>
>I was planning to clean my engine at the next oil change and wanted to know
>if anyone had any advice. I have some Oil Eater which works pretty well on
>the oily belly but didn=92t know if there was something better for the engine
>itself or a preferred method. The engine isn=92t really nasty or anything,
>just VERY dusty and a little grimy in places. Any recommendations on
>cleaning the engine would be appreciated.
Yeh.
Its pretty much standard around here to use avgas. It works well, dries
quickly, and is much cheaper than the recommended water soluble (fire
resistant) engine cleaning products. Now if you're careful, you can even
smoke while you clean the engine. Just don't get caught.
NOW HERE'S THE REAL STORY.....
I have watched several real pros clean engines with gasoline. It does, in
fact work well. But you got to be crazy. Last year, in a very large repair
hangar adjacent to mine, a couple of mechanics were cleaning up after a
repair job. To save time, they used avgas. They won't admit it, but I have
seen them smoking while working on fuel systems. So I can easily suspect
one was smoking while cleaning up the engine. Anyway, they lost the piston
twin they were working on and the Citation jet next to it. Hey, the good
news is that the Avgas was cheaper than the water soluble solvent. (and
that no one was burned to death.) The bill was probably 6-8
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net>
I don't know how I lost my reply to cyberspace, but it seems to have been
sent before I could finish.
Anyway, the bill for the two destroyed aircraft was probably $6-8 million .
I once tried to spray my engine with gasoline to clean it down. I was
absolutly crazy. A million things could have happened to ignite a fire, but
it was sooo easy to use. Anyway, use the standard engine solvents
recommended by the pros on this list.
-
Louis I Willig
1640 Oakwood Dr.
Penn Valley, PA 19072
610 668-4964
RV-4, N180PF
190HP IO-360, C/S prop
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 |
|
| Subject: | Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Standard Practice is to use plain old Stoddard Solvent. Get one of those
nifty air nozzle/gun thingies with the hose on it and "blow the engine
clean"!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Travis Hamblen
Subject: RV-List: Cleaning an engine
--> RV-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
I was planning to clean my engine at the next oil change and wanted to know
if anyone had any advice. I have some Oil Eater which works pretty well on
the oily belly but didn=92t know if there was something better for the
engine
itself or a preferred method. The engine isn=92t really nasty or anything,
just VERY dusty and a little grimy in places. Any recommendations on
cleaning the engine would be appreciated.
Travis
RV-6A @ VGT
Do not archive
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "mailindex@juno.com" <mailindex@juno.com>
You will get many answers and many people do use avgas. There is a danger factor,
but I dont think it is any greater than spraying paint. My favorite is Brake
Clean, three cans will do it, I like the CRC brand in the red can. It works
better if the engine is warm.
Bruce Green
Eagle N110GM
Juno Gift Certificates
Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season.
http://www.juno.com/give
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jack Ford" <jackoford@theofficenet.com>
I used to use Stoddard solvent in a garden sprayer-caught the runoff in a 5
gal plastic bucket and strained it through three layers of towel to reuse
it. Worked just fine, reused the solvent many times.
The engine compartment looked like I'd steam cleaned it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cleaning an engine
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>
> Standard Practice is to use plain old Stoddard Solvent. Get one of those
> nifty air nozzle/gun thingies with the hose on it and "blow the engine
> clean"!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein Bruch
> RV6's, Minneapolis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Travis Hamblen
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Cleaning an engine
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
>
> I was planning to clean my engine at the next oil change and wanted to
know
> if anyone had any advice. I have some Oil Eater which works pretty well
on
> the oily belly but didn=92t know if there was something better for the
> engine
> itself or a preferred method. The engine isn=92t really nasty or
anything,
> just VERY dusty and a little grimy in places. Any recommendations on
> cleaning the engine would be appreciated.
>
>
> Travis
>
> RV-6A @ VGT
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> ---
>
>
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: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
Is there any problem with using the oil eater then spraying down the engine
with one of the high pressure sprayers? I=92ve done it to car engines, but
never to a plane engine. I can=92t think of any problems in doing it, someone
please let me know if there are known problems with cleaning the engine with
the power washer.
Travis
RV-6A @ VGT
do not archive
---
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: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
I usually end up using a toilet or similar brush and mineral spirits.
Cheap, relatively low volatility, disolves most stuff. Make sure it won't
hurt your paint. Some of the others at the field use Varsol. But they have
a drum sitting in the hanger.
Have used some of the water based detergent cleaners from the auto parts
store, but the old timers cringe when mentioning use of water/water based
cleaners (out of concern for unnecessary corrosion.
I sometimes use avgas in a bucket to clean parts. Spraying or splashing it
around is outside my comfort limit.
Bryan
>You will get many answers and many people do use avgas. There is a danger
>factor, but I dont think it is any greater than spraying paint. My
>favorite is Brake Clean, three cans will do it, I like the CRC brand in the
>red can. It works better if the engine is warm.
>
>Bruce Green
>Eagle N110GM
>
>Juno Gift Certificates
>Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season.
>http://www.juno.com/give
>
>
Message 22
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
So while we're on the subject....
As I lean my carbureted E3D, the EGTs continue to climb until the engine goes
rough. Will I ever see 50 deg. lean of peak? 8-(
What's going on here?
From The PossumWorks
Mark & do not archive mindless questions.............
Message 23
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Fiveonepw@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
>So while we're on the subject....
>
>As I lean my carbureted E3D, the EGTs continue to climb until the engine goes
>rough. Will I ever see 50 deg. lean of peak? 8-(
>
Probably not. :-(
>What's going on here?
>
Nothing unusual. You've just found out that there isn't even
distribution of fuel to all cylinders. You would be close if you had an
injected engine ...... but you need GAMI injectors to get even closer to
even distribution. What happens in the carbureted engines is that one
cylinder will go over lean before the others and the engine will run
rougher. Keep leaning and another will go lean and so on. Best to lean
to rough and enrichen to smooth ..... and enjoy the flight!
Linn
>
>>From The PossumWorks
>Mark & do not archive mindless questions.............
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| 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: | Bending the elevator tabs |
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
OK - Don't laugh.....
Remember the guy who was all excited about drilling the canopy?
Well, I just successfully bent the tabs on the elevator.
I feel like a king! My Wife thinks I'm half insane.
The first time was a nightmare (Yes, I'm rebuilding it)
Now.... This I want in the archive!
Use the double sided carpet tape Van's tells you to use (SO THE WOOD BLOCKS DON'T
MOVE)
One more time...
USE CARPET TAPE.
Only you all would understand. Had to share.
Dave
BTW: For Woodbridge Virginia, the wing shipping was 425.00. That's 365 to the
terminal and 60 bucks for the 20 miles to my front door.
David Fenstermacher
dfenstermacher@earthlink.net
Message 25
| 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: | Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kosta Lewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>You will get many answers and many people do use avgas. There is a
danger
>factor.......
Danger factor? DANGER FACTOR?
bawWOOOOOOOOOOSHggggggggggggggggggggGGGGGGGGGGGKA(expletive)BOOM!!!!!!!!
!
Oh, there's your airplane. And up there, and over there and back over
here....
MAN. I can't even stand to READ about hosing off an engine with avgas.
DANGER factor?! Ahmagawd!
You bet it is a good solvent: it will dissolve your airplane.
Yikes!
What does a carburetor do? Aerosolizes fuel to make it burn better. What
does a spray wand do? Aerosolizes fuel to AHHHHHH. I can't even WRITE
about this.
ACK ack ack ack
I gotta get OUTA here!
Michael
What's that smell??????
Do not archive; it might go up in flames..............
Message 26
| 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: | Rv-List Power Required |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Oke
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>Here is perhaps another way to think of things.
1. The airplane weighs the same at all usable altitudes.*
2. Thus the wing has produce the same amount of lift effect.
3. Since the air is less dense at altitude, you have to move the wing
faster
through the air to get the same amount of lift.
4. Because you are going faster, the amount of drag increases too, even
though the air is less dense.
5. The two effects are exactly matched with the airspeed indicator, so
that
the airplane, if operated at the same CAS, will have the same amount of
lift
and drag. **
6. Power is a measure of the amount of work (which is the same as moving
a
force through a distance) performed during a given period of time.
7. Let's say the airplane has a drag of say 200 lbs at 157 kts CAS.
8. At sea level, the airplane moves 157 nm in one hour, while at
altitude
the airplane moves 220 nm in the same one hour of time, in each case
working
against the same 200 lb drag force. .
9. So the airplane flying at altitude has moved the same force a greater
distance in the same time and so must have used more power to do so (as
it
did more work in the same amount of time).
10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you either need
a
bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-3, RV-6A
I'm wondering if there might not be some free lunch, or at least a snack
after all.
Kevin Horton originally estimated that it takes 110 hp to drive an RV-8
at 157 kts at sea level and 154 hp to get the same cas at 22k'.
So I'm doing 157 kts near sea level and burning 12 gph (I actually do
about 175 kts down low for that fuel burn in our O-320 RV-6a - limited
to 2600rpm by the prop). In an hour I will have traveled 157 nautical
miles and burned 12 gallons of 100LL.
Now as I climb to 22,000 I kick in my (imaginary) supercharger which
allows me to make the necessary horsepower the keep up my 157kt cas at
that altitude. It only takes me 43 minutes to cover the same 157
nautical miles at 220 tas. If my fuel burn (per hour) goes up by 40
percent it would be about 16.8 gph. I'll burn about 11.93 gallons in
that 43 minutes for a net savings of .07 gallons of gas and 17 minutes
of my precious time. I'm flying 29 percent fewer hours/1000 miles with
commensurate savings in maintenance costs i.e.: less oil change and
engine overhaul reserve costs per mile flown assuming I don't blow up my
engine in the mean time.
I didn't factor in time to climb, though. That's likely to be a bitch.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
I did some sample trips supposing that my supercharged RV climbs at 800
fpm at 110 kts ias burning 20 gph, cruises at 220 burning 16.8 gph at
22k ft and descends at 500 fpm at 157 kts ias burning 12 gph.
I compared it to the same trips using my RV-6a climbing at 600 fpm at
110 kts ias burning 12 gph, cruising at 155 kts tas at 9k ft and
descending at 500 fpm at 160 kts ias burning 6 gph (figures I normally
use for flight planning).
As you can see I went very heavy on the fuel burn, both climbing and
descending, on the hypothetical airplane and light on the rate of climb.
The comparisons are as follows:
From WHP (Los Angeles) to Phoenix a distance of 323 nm, the Super RV
burned 11 gallons more and arrived 16 minutes earlier.
From WHP to LRU (Las Cruces, NM), 588 nm, it burned 16 gallons more and
saved 48 minutes.
From WHP to UAO (the home of Van's), 689 nm, it drank 18 gallons extra
and saved 58 minutes.
These examples don't address the difference in fuel burn and time from
sea level to 22000 ft where the fuel burns might be closer together, but
the low level flight would be impossible due to intervening terrain. We
got mountains out here.
Message 27
| 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: | Polishing Aluminum |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan@hotmail.com>
Listers,
I would like to start a thread about polishing unpainted aluminum,
specificaly I want to hear from RV builders/owners who have a polished RV,
or a combination of partly painted and partly polished.
I have done a little research into the chemicals (compounds) and tools
(polishers, compounders, cloth, etc.) that the Temco/Swift and the
Airstream-Trailer folks use.
At this point it seems to me that polishing an RV is much cheaper than
painting it, even if you do it yourself, plus it will not add any
considerable weight, while painting adds 10-40 pounds to the empty weight of
the craft (by several accounts). Polished aluminum does need some
maintenance, but after the first "big job" (which still sounds like takes
less time than painting) it sounds like it only takes 1-2 days a year to
keep up a nice shine.
I understand that the fiberglass parts (tips, cowl, etc.) need to be painted
"anyway", so maybe there's a valid argument for "just have it all painted,
and be done with it", and personal taste might play a great part in favoring
paint over polished aluminum, but, and here is my real question (Finally...
thanks for bearing with me so far):
Are there any other considerations I am missing?
Amit,
65 hours of flying with bare, unpolished aluminum.
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Message 28
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/03/2004 9:27:34 PM Central Standard Time,
lwalters2@cfl.rr.com writes:
Keep leaning and another will go lean and so on. Best to lean
to rough and enrichen to smooth ..... and enjoy the flight!
>>>
That's been the drill- thanks Linn!
Mark - do not archive
Message 29
| 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: Polishing Aluminum |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
I can only speak from direct experience. RV-4 and a HRII (before it was
painted). Flying in the High desert area around Apple Valley Airport where
we have very little cloud cover. Several times we have had to change course
due to effect of the sun off the new shinny wing skins. Can you spell
"Blowtorch". Not from a vision problem but from the heat applied to the side
of our heads. However....There's a coupla guys from Big Bear Airport that
have a business of polishing out aircraft. I've only seen two of their
examples, an Aircoupe and a Swift that they have flown into APV. Both planes
were well over 20yrs old when these guys first started on them. Absolutely
Gorgeous does not do them justice. Don't know what they do, but they do it
right. You can tell these planes have not been "re-skinned" just reworked.
You should be able to make contact via Big Bear Airport management. KABONG
Do Not Archive HRII is now painted in Aggressor Blue-Gray w/ USAF markings
and a MT four bladed prop.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Polishing Aluminum
Message 30
| 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: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
--> RV-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen@cox.net>
I was planning to clean my engine at the next oil change and wanted to know
if anyone had any advice. I have some Oil Eater which works pretty well on
the oily belly but didn=92t know if there was something better for the
engine
itself or a preferred method. The engine isn=92t really nasty or anything,
just VERY dusty and a little grimy in places. Any recommendations on
cleaning the engine would be appreciated.
=================================================
BMW motorcycle shops sell an aerosol product called S100 for cleaning all
aluminum alloy surfaces. You apply, leave for about 15 minutes and then hose
off with a cold water stream. I will be doing it this way at my next
condition inspection.
GV (RV-6A N1GV, Flying 730hrs)
Message 31
| 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: Polishing Aluminum |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
. KABONG
> Do Not Archive HRII is now painted in Aggressor Blue-Gray w/ USAF
> markings
This I'd like to see; any pictures available?
Scott in Vancouver
do not archive
>
>
>
Message 32
| 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: | Non-a/c related Items for sale-DELETE if not interested |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
I apologize in advance that this is not RV related, but list folks might
still have a desire for these items, and you should get first dibs before I go
to Ebay. All in great condition, prices are negotiable and located in SF Bay
area:
1985 BMW K100RS motorcycle, blue 37K mi
HP Draftmaster SX large format pen plotter
Contact me directly via e-mail. Do not archive.
GV (RV-6A N1GV, Flying 730hrs)
Message 33
| 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: Polishing Aluminum |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Have some photos BUT I don't like the way they turned out. Will post "good
one's" shortly. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Polishing Aluminum
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
>
>
> . KABONG
>> Do Not Archive HRII is now painted in Aggressor Blue-Gray w/ USAF
>> markings
>
> This I'd like to see; any pictures available?
> Scott in Vancouver
> do not archive
Message 34
| 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: | Rv-List Power Required |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
I forgot to mention - I figured the RV-6's cruising fuel burn at 9 gph
in the examples below. I generally burn less than that at that sort of
altitude.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Oke
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>Here is perhaps another way to think of things.
1. The airplane weighs the same at all usable altitudes.*
2. Thus the wing has produce the same amount of lift effect.
3. Since the air is less dense at altitude, you have to move the wing
faster
through the air to get the same amount of lift.
4. Because you are going faster, the amount of drag increases too, even
though the air is less dense.
5. The two effects are exactly matched with the airspeed indicator, so
that
the airplane, if operated at the same CAS, will have the same amount of
lift
and drag. **
6. Power is a measure of the amount of work (which is the same as moving
a
force through a distance) performed during a given period of time.
7. Let's say the airplane has a drag of say 200 lbs at 157 kts CAS.
8. At sea level, the airplane moves 157 nm in one hour, while at
altitude
the airplane moves 220 nm in the same one hour of time, in each case
working
against the same 200 lb drag force. .
9. So the airplane flying at altitude has moved the same force a greater
distance in the same time and so must have used more power to do so (as
it
did more work in the same amount of time).
10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you either need
a
bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-3, RV-6A
I'm wondering if there might not be some free lunch, or at least a snack
after all.
Kevin Horton originally estimated that it takes 110 hp to drive an RV-8
at 157 kts at sea level and 154 hp to get the same cas at 22k'.
So I'm doing 157 kts near sea level and burning 12 gph (I actually do
about 175 kts down low for that fuel burn in our O-320 RV-6a - limited
to 2600rpm by the prop). In an hour I will have traveled 157 nautical
miles and burned 12 gallons of 100LL.
Now as I climb to 22,000 I kick in my (imaginary) supercharger which
allows me to make the necessary horsepower the keep up my 157kt cas at
that altitude. It only takes me 43 minutes to cover the same 157
nautical miles at 220 tas. If my fuel burn (per hour) goes up by 40
percent it would be about 16.8 gph. I'll burn about 11.93 gallons in
that 43 minutes for a net savings of .07 gallons of gas and 17 minutes
of my precious time. I'm flying 29 percent fewer hours/1000 miles with
commensurate savings in maintenance costs i.e.: less oil change and
engine overhaul reserve costs per mile flown assuming I don't blow up my
engine in the mean time.
I didn't factor in time to climb, though. That's likely to be a bitch.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
I did some sample trips supposing that my supercharged RV climbs at 800
fpm at 110 kts ias burning 20 gph, cruises at 220 burning 16.8 gph at
22k ft and descends at 500 fpm at 157 kts ias burning 12 gph.
I compared it to the same trips using my RV-6a climbing at 600 fpm at
110 kts ias burning 12 gph, cruising at 155 kts tas at 9k ft and
descending at 500 fpm at 160 kts ias burning 6 gph (figures I normally
use for flight planning).
As you can see I went very heavy on the fuel burn, both climbing and
descending, on the hypothetical airplane and light on the rate of climb.
The comparisons are as follows:
From WHP (Los Angeles) to Phoenix a distance of 323 nm, the Super RV
burned 11 gallons more and arrived 16 minutes earlier.
From WHP to LRU (Las Cruces, NM), 588 nm, it burned 16 gallons more and
saved 48 minutes.
From WHP to UAO (the home of Van's), 689 nm, it drank 18 gallons extra
and saved 58 minutes.
These examples don't address the difference in fuel burn and time from
sea level to 22000 ft where the fuel burns might be closer together, but
the low level flight would be impossible due to intervening terrain. We
got mountains out here.
Message 35
| 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: Rv-List Power Required |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
I probably should have said "there is no aerodynamic free lunch" to be had
in flying at higher altitudes. Engines, be they piston or turbine, naturally
react to changes in altitude and generally are happier when operating at
cooler ambient temperatures, which is of course the normal situation when
flying higher.
The 7,000 - 8,000 altitude range is a natural one for an engine designer to
choose to optimize for due other reasons such as probable terrain
clearance, avoiding the need for onboard oxygen, etc.
The basic point remains, you need more power to maintain the same CAS at a
higher altitude.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>> 10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you
>> either need a
>> bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>>
>
> There are indeed free lunches with respect to flying higher. Many factors
> apply, but most normally aspirated piston planes get their best economy
> (which is another way of saying speed per gallon) at something around 7 -
> 8
> thousand feet. Obviously, if a trip is only 50 miles, there may not be a
> net benefit. Jets run high because for the same indicated airspeed, which
> approximately translates to power needed, they have a much higher TAS.
> I'll
> let the jet jockeys chime in here, but the fuel burns in jets go way up at
> lower altitudes, TAS the same.
>
> I will run some tests soon, setting some constant power (this means basic
> power settings are the same, and fuel flow and egt relative to peak must
> be
> identical), fly a high and low altitude run, and take data. A
> complication
> to this is that the temperature will not be the same at, for example,
> 2000'
> vs 7500'. In any case, the output of this test will be to calculate TAS
> based upon temperature, IAS, barometer and altitude.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 558 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
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! --
|