Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:53 AM - Re: (RAS)
2. 01:54 AM - Re: first flight (RAS)
3. 05:11 AM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
4. 06:01 AM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (Kevin Williams)
5. 06:22 AM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
6. 06:28 AM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (WFACT01@aol.com)
7. 07:21 AM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (Tedd McHenry)
8. 08:32 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (sportav8r@aol.com)
9. 08:35 AM - First flight (Charlie Brame)
10. 08:35 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (sportav8r@aol.com)
11. 08:40 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (Mike Robertson)
12. 08:44 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (sportav8r@aol.com)
13. 08:48 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Mike Robertson)
14. 08:59 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Mike Robertson)
15. 09:22 AM - Re: First flight (RAS)
16. 09:27 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Dan Morrow)
17. 09:35 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Dan Morrow)
18. 11:09 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Mike Robertson)
19. 01:33 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (Kevin Horton)
20. 02:13 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (Chris W)
21. 02:33 PM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (linn walters)
22. 02:39 PM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (linn walters)
23. 02:44 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (Dan Checkoway)
24. 03:10 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (DonVS)
25. 06:06 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (rveighta)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Hi,
There's one problem with that theory, MP is a tad difficult to influence
with a carb engine, other than flying as low as permitted or possible.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: <rvpilot@access4less.net>
Subject: RV-List:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
>
> Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the rings,
> it"s
> high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against the
> cylinder walls
> and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their best
> seal before a
> layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring
> seating effectively ceases.
> For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is
> complete. With
> steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as
> evidenced by a
> stabilized oil consumption.
>
> Bill Davis
>
>
> rvpilot@access4less.net
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
> Much as I hate to disagree with Sam, I'd like to make some points.
> First, the best way to seat the rings is to get max pressure in the
> cylinder. The rings aren't flat, and the high pressure forces the ring
> to 'flatten' a little and thus seal better. That's as I understand it.
>
>
>
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Hi,
As posted before, refer to your manual re wheel pants and leg fairings. Oil
temp at 180MPH is around 160/170F, all other T's/P's in the green.
Marcel
G-XIII/RV7/ N. Ireland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: first flight
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>>
>> I think there may be a misunderstanding here...he was talking about wheel
>> pants and leg fairings, not the cowling. The engine probably would run
>> hot
>> without the cowling...I know on the ground it would. But flying without
>> wheel fairings shouldn't affect the engine temperatures significantly.
>> Don Hull
>
> Flying without the wheel and gear fairings would be like flying a shallow
> climb, and the engine will definitely run hotter. How much is hard to
> tell,
> but it will be more than one would think. For the same power output (and
> hence heat load, mixture being the same), the airspeed will be less, and
> therefore less cooling air with no fairings. No way around it. Those who
> have only flown overcooled training aircraft will have a hard time
> believing
> the sensitivity of airspeed vs cooling in RV's. The -4's seem to have
> quite
> a bit more cooling reserve than the other RV's, due in part to their
> higher
> speeds for the same power.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6A N66AP 641 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
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: | fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Having been reading up on this with lyco articles and so forth, it is
the manifold pressures not the rpm that seats the rings. It was not
semantics you were discussing, rather RPM vs MP. With FP your stuck with
high rpm to get the MP. What you do not want is a c/s prop at 2700rpm
pulling 18".
Lyco says run 75% power. Engine shops say Max MP, rpm as high as you can
stand it.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Subject: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
rvpilot@access4less.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
>
> Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the
rings, it"s
> high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against
the cylinder walls
> and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their
best seal before a
> layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring
seating effectively ceases.
> For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is
complete. With
> steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as
evidenced by a
> stabilized oil consumption.
Granted. But those of us with fixed-pitch props have to resort to higher
rpm in order to pull more manifold pressure.
I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The point I was making is
the engine should not be flown gingerly, it needs to develop a lot of
power (rpm or MP, whatever your particular engine/prop requires) in
order to rapidly and reliably seat the rings. You guys with the CS props
can load the engine at lower rpm, us folks with the cheap props have to
wind up our engines (2400-2600 rpm) to get high MP unless we are flying
at sea level.
That's why a lot of us fly our new planes with new engines without the
pants and fairings so breaking in the cylinders won't result in higher
than desired airspeed.
Sam Buchanan
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: | fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
What baffles me is, if its so darn important to run the engine just right
to get just the right break in characteristics . . . why isnt this done at
the factory / re-build shop?
It seems to me a really simple thing to do. Have a tension system that
bolts on to where the prop would go and place the engine in a simple wind
tunnel. I believe a 150MPH wind would be more than enough to keep the engine
cool. Less speed if the air was air-conditioned.
By breaking in the engine in a controlled environment you can ensure the
engine and all cylinders remain at a constant temperature and MP.
Kevin
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
Having been reading up on this with lyco articles and so forth, it is
the manifold pressures not the rpm that seats the rings. It was not
semantics you were discussing, rather RPM vs MP. With FP your stuck with
high rpm to get the MP. What you do not want is a c/s prop at 2700rpm
pulling 18".
Lyco says run 75% power. Engine shops say Max MP, rpm as high as you can
stand it.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Subject: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
rvpilot@access4less.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
>
> Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the
rings, it"s
> high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against
the cylinder walls
> and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their
best seal before a
> layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring
seating effectively ceases.
> For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is
complete. With
> steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as
evidenced by a
> stabilized oil consumption.
Granted. But those of us with fixed-pitch props have to resort to higher
rpm in order to pull more manifold pressure.
I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The point I was making is
the engine should not be flown gingerly, it needs to develop a lot of
power (rpm or MP, whatever your particular engine/prop requires) in
order to rapidly and reliably seat the rings. You guys with the CS props
can load the engine at lower rpm, us folks with the cheap props have to
wind up our engines (2400-2600 rpm) to get high MP unless we are flying
at sea level.
That's why a lot of us fly our new planes with new engines without the
pants and fairings so breaking in the cylinders won't result in higher
than desired airspeed.
Sam Buchanan
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: | fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
It can be and is in many cases.
My new Lyco in my 6 came with 3 test stand hours from the factory.
My 540 that was rebuilt certified, had an option from the shop to test
run it for $1k. I choose to break in the 540 in the air and stick the
money in my pocket... ahhh. Somewhere else in the plane:)
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Williams
Subject: RE: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
What baffles me is, if its so darn important to run the engine just
right
to get just the right break in characteristics . . . why isnt this done
at
the factory / re-build shop?
It seems to me a really simple thing to do. Have a tension system that
bolts on to where the prop would go and place the engine in a simple
wind
tunnel. I believe a 150MPH wind would be more than enough to keep the
engine
cool. Less speed if the air was air-conditioned.
By breaking in the engine in a controlled environment you can ensure the
engine and all cylinders remain at a constant temperature and MP.
Kevin
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
Having been reading up on this with lyco articles and so forth, it is
the manifold pressures not the rpm that seats the rings. It was not
semantics you were discussing, rather RPM vs MP. With FP your stuck with
high rpm to get the MP. What you do not want is a c/s prop at 2700rpm
pulling 18".
Lyco says run 75% power. Engine shops say Max MP, rpm as high as you can
stand it.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Subject: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
rvpilot@access4less.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
>
> Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the
rings, it"s
> high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter
against
the cylinder walls
> and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their
best seal before a
> layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further
ring
seating effectively ceases.
> For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in
is
complete. With
> steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as
evidenced by a
> stabilized oil consumption.
Granted. But those of us with fixed-pitch props have to resort to higher
rpm in order to pull more manifold pressure.
I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The point I was making is
the engine should not be flown gingerly, it needs to develop a lot of
power (rpm or MP, whatever your particular engine/prop requires) in
order to rapidly and reliably seat the rings. You guys with the CS props
can load the engine at lower rpm, us folks with the cheap props have to
wind up our engines (2400-2600 rpm) to get high MP unless we are flying
at sea level.
That's why a lot of us fly our new planes with new engines without the
pants and fairings so breaking in the cylinders won't result in higher
than desired airspeed.
Sam Buchanan
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: fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: WFACT01@aol.com
KEVIN-- MOST GOOD ENGINE SHOPS DO--- THE TEST CELLS COST A LOT OF MONEY-TOM
TOM WHELAN
WFACT01@AOL.COM
TEL-203-2665300 FAX 203 266-5140
AIRPORT-CT01-----122.725
RV-8-SP-IO-540-350+HP---55HRS
S-51-MUSTANG-TURBINE
F-24 FAIRCHILD
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: | fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
>
<snip>
> It seems to me a really simple thing to do. Have a tension system that
> bolts on to where the prop would go and place the engine in a simple wind
> tunnel. I believe a 150MPH wind would be more than enough to keep the engine
> cool. Less speed if the air was air-conditioned.
Ever priced wind tunnels? What you say is quite correct, and is sometimes
done, except for the "simple" part. The engine test cells are quite expensive,
and you pay a lot of money to have your engine run in this way.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 ultra-slow-build
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Measurements probably taken at slow cruise (it's been over a year since I did this),
so maybe 130 mph? Two flights were made comparing readings on same thermometer
and probe, once with probe in the panel air duct opening, and then immediate
repeat flight with probe taped to underside of right wing about two feet
from root, flown at same altitude. Difference noted was the 8 degrees F already
referenced. I'm quoting from memory here, so a check in the archives for
accuracy may be in order. Point is, yes, we're reading high for TAS and DALT
claculations, AND, we're giving up cockpit cooling efficiency as well, with the
probe in the NACA duct and by locating the NACA ducts where "they" say to put
them. Bad deal all around.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
>... the air coming out of the freash air vent is actually a measured 8 degrees
F hotter than ambient.
>
Really?! Out of curiosity, what air speed was that measurement taken at?
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
IMHO, Van's recommendation for a first flight without wheel pants and
gear leg fairings has more to do with trim and flight control alignment
than it has to do with engine break in or cooling.
Wheel pants and gear leg fairings are intended to reduce drag. But if
they are not aligned perfectly with the relative air flow, they will
cause side loads and directional control and actually increase drag. If
one initially flies with wheel pants and fairings, how can you tell
whether a roll or yaw is caused by vertical tail alignment, poorly
rigged ailerons, etc., or misaligned wheel pants and/or fairings? In
fact, misaligned pants and/or fairings could be offsetting misaligned
ailerons or rudder.
By flying initially without pants and fairings, you eliminate them as
factors in getting the airplane to fly straight and level. Once
satisfied that your bird is rigged correctly and flying perfectly
straight, then mount the wheel pants and retest. If it now rolls or flys
a bit sideways, you know beyond a shadow of doubt that the problem is
the the wheel pants. Once hands off conditions are again met with the
pants installed, install the fairings and retest. Go through the same
process again with the intersection fairings.
Using this methodology, you can be assured that you have a straight
flying airplane with minimum drag from any source. It takes a bit more
time and effort, but that's what the 25 and 40 hour test periods are
for. IMHO.
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I've done that experiment... taped over all the gaps in the cowl where air could
escape and took measurements. About half the heating is from surface convection
over the hot cowl, and half is leakage of hot air from inside the cowl into
the slipstream and then to the NACA inlet. Seems like taping the seams and
insulating the sides of the cowl are both required to make this location work
well.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: BELTEDAIR@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: BELTEDAIR@aol.com
The temp rise may well be from air exiting the cowl openings and flowing back
along the fuselage to your air pickup. We relocated ours on top of the
fuselage aft of the antenna, aft of the slider limit. The inlets are oversized
for
climb cooling.
Jess
Belted Air
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
On this issue I agree with Dan. My first RV-8 I installed the probe int he
NACA scope. It read hot. On the second plane I installed it under the wing
gap fairing. It read hot. Not as bad as the NACA scope location but still
high. The probe needs to be somewhere outboard on the wing. I have seen
several that were mounted on one of the access panels under the wings, or
very close to an access panel so it was easy to install.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
>Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:06:09 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>Under your wing, about mid-span out or more. Away from heat sources for
>the
>most accurate reading.
>
>Mine is under my right wing. When I fly with RVs who installed the probe
>in
>their NACA vent, their readings are consistently higher than mine in the
>air. Hot air does escape the cowl.
>
>I've had a few encounters with icing in IMC and I want my OAT to be dead
>on.
>Imho, forget the convenient wiring...go for accuracy.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "rveighta" <rveighta@earthlink.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: OAT Probe location
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: rveighta <rveighta@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Guys, when I was finishing up my RV-8A, I placed the OAT probe in the
>NACA
>air duct. Never been happy with it -temps run too hot. Now that I'm in the
>same building spot with my rv-8 I'm wondering where a better location might
>be? Maybe in the leading edge of the wing/fuselage fairing?
> >
> > Appreciate any ideas......
> >
> > Walt Shipley
> >
> >
>
>
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Test Pilot Kevin:
Am I correct in assuming this only applies to applications where the the temp probe
is measuring oncoming air that is slowed to zero relative velocity and thereby
ram-compresssed (to the equivalent of the pitot pressure) rather than to
probes in freely moving slipstream air that isn't being slowed much at all (except
for that pesky boundary layer with near-zero velocity at the surface...)?
Was that clear?? Just looking for insight and understanding here :-)
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 26 Jul 2005, at 15:27, Chris W wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W
> <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>
> sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> ... the air coming out of the freash air vent is actually a
>> measured 8 degrees F hotter than ambient.
>>
>>
> Really?! Out of curiosity, what air speed was that measurement
> taken at?
>
I'd also be interested to know how one measures the ambient
temperature so one can compare the output of the temp sensor to ambient.
At 170 kt TAS, the temperature increase due to ram rise would be
about 7 deg F. I.e, if you took the air coming in the NACA scoop,
and let it slow down so it is at rest with respect to the aircraft,
you would expect its temperature to be about 7 deg F hotter than the
ambient temperature. Just be glad you aren't racing for the
Unlimited Gold at Reno. At the speeds those guys are running, the
ram rise would be over 45 deg F, and the ambient temperature is
already pretty hot.
The ram rise in deg C is equal to the square of the TAS in kt divided
by 7592.
The ram rise in deg F is equal to the square of the TAS in mph
divided by 5587.
The amount of the ram rise sensed by the temperature sensor will
vary, depending on the probe's recovery factor. Good quality probes
supposedly have recovery factors of between 0.95 and 1, but some
probes may have lower recovery factors. The temperature measured by
the probe would be about:
IAT=OAT+K*(TAS
2/7592)
where IAT is the indicated air temperature reported by the probe, in
deg C
OAT is the actual ambient air temperature, in deg C,
K is the probe's recovery factor, and
TAS is the true airspeed in kt
You may be more familiar with the classical equation that relates ram
rise to Mach.
total air temperature/ambient air temperature = (1 + 0.2 * M
2), with
both temperatures expressed in either degrees Kelvin, or degrees
Rankin). Or,
OAT = (IAT + 273.15) / (1 + 0.2*K*M
2) - 273.15
where where IAT is the indicated air temperature reported by the
probe, in deg C,
OAT is the actual ambient air temperature, in deg C,
K is the probe's recovery factor, and
M is the Mach number.
The first time I saw the equation with TAS, I thought it must be an
approximation, as we are always told that ram rise is a function of
Mach. But, one day when I was bored, I dissected the equations and
found that the equation with TAS was mathematically equivalent to the
one with Mach.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
NO. Once it is done it does not have to be re-done unless you change
instruments or break the lines.
Mike Robertson
>From: Knicholas2@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:36:02 EDT
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
>
>Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
>system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24
>months.
>
>Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
>
>Kim Nicholas
>RV9A
>
>
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: | Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
YEP. The regs are 91.411 and 91.413. if it is installed it shall be used
and inspected in accordance with the regs. For transponder usage rules take
a look at 91.215.
Mike Robertson
>From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:12:18 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>No time to look it up but I suspect that if you USE a transponder
>it needs to be checked.
>
>Ron Lee
>
>
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: First flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Hi Charlie,
I DOES really say so in the manual. Read through the last few chapters. It
only recommends when a new engine is used. RTFM as they say :-)
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Brame" <chasb@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: First flight
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
>
> IMHO, Van's recommendation for a first flight without wheel pants and
> gear leg fairings has more to do with trim and flight control alignment
> than it has to do with engine break in or cooling.
>
> Wheel pants and gear leg fairings are intended to reduce drag. But if
> they are not aligned perfectly with the relative air flow, they will
> cause side loads and directional control and actually increase drag. If
> one initially flies with wheel pants and fairings, how can you tell
> whether a roll or yaw is caused by vertical tail alignment, poorly
> rigged ailerons, etc., or misaligned wheel pants and/or fairings? In
> fact, misaligned pants and/or fairings could be offsetting misaligned
> ailerons or rudder.
>
> By flying initially without pants and fairings, you eliminate them as
> factors in getting the airplane to fly straight and level. Once
> satisfied that your bird is rigged correctly and flying perfectly
> straight, then mount the wheel pants and retest. If it now rolls or flys
> a bit sideways, you know beyond a shadow of doubt that the problem is
> the the wheel pants. Once hands off conditions are again met with the
> pants installed, install the fairings and retest. Go through the same
> process again with the intersection fairings.
>
> Using this methodology, you can be assured that you have a straight
> flying airplane with minimum drag from any source. It takes a bit more
> time and effort, but that's what the 25 and 40 hour test periods are
> for. IMHO.
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>
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: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01@butter.toast.net>
FAR 91.215(c) says that if you have a transponder that works and has been
calibrated and certified within the last two years, then the transponder
must be on when within controlled airspace.
FAR 91.215 lays all this out in gory detail.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy@speedyquick.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy@speedyquick.net>
>
> This is one of the most misunderstood areas that I run into when giving a
> BFR.
>
> You *absolutely* need a transponder w/mode C to operate in Class C
> airspace.
> Also to operate above Class B or C within the lateral boundaries. Also
> required within 30nm of a Class B airport even outside the B airspace (the
> "veil"). Also necessary above 10,000' MSL everywhere. (unless at or below
> 2500 agl)
>
> There are a lot of places you can't go without a mode C transponder, but
> you
> don't HAVE to have one. If you do have one, you don't have to use it if
> not
> in the above mentioned airspace. However, if you do have one, and you do
> use it, it has to have been checked within the preceding 2 years.
>
> There is no pitot-static test requirement for VFR flight.
>
> Ed Bundy
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
> Nope. For VFR, you just need an engine and two wings. Need a radio to
> go into Class C and D and a radio/transponder into Class B.
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
> Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
> system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24
> months.
>
> Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
>
>
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: | Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01@butter.toast.net>
As I read FAR 91.413(a), the transponder check must be done every 24 months
or it cannot be used.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> NO. Once it is done it does not have to be re-done unless you change
> instruments or break the lines.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>>From: Knicholas2@aol.com
>>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
>>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:36:02 EDT
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
>>
>>Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
>>system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24
>>months.
>>
>>Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
>>
>>Kim Nicholas
>>RV9A
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
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: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Transponder...yes. A pitot-static check...no
Mike Robertson
>From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01@butter.toast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:31:58 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01@butter.toast.net>
>
>As I read FAR 91.413(a), the transponder check must be done every 24
>months
>or it cannot be used.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> > NO. Once it is done it does not have to be re-done unless you change
> > instruments or break the lines.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> >
> >>From: Knicholas2@aol.com
> >>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>Subject: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
> >>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:36:02 EDT
> >>
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
> >>
> >>Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
> >>system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24
> >>months.
> >>
> >>Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
> >>
> >>Kim Nicholas
> >>RV9A
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
>
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
The air that is touching the probe will be at zero velocity with
respect to the probe, so it will be warmer than the ambient
temperature. The probe design, the airflow patterns around the
probe, and the way that the surround material conducts heat to or
away from the probe will determine what the probe recovery factor is.
In theory, you could figure out approximately what the probe recovery
factor is by stabilizing at the slowest possible speed, waiting for
the indicated OAT to stabilize. Then go at the maximum level flight
speed at the same altitude, and see what the indicated OAT is. Do
this a few times and then see what recovery factor is needed to make
sense of the numbers.
Kevin
On 27 Jul 2005, at 11:41, sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
> Test Pilot Kevin:
>
> Am I correct in assuming this only applies to applications where
> the the temp probe is measuring oncoming air that is slowed to zero
> relative velocity and thereby ram-compresssed (to the equivalent of
> the pitot pressure) rather than to probes in freely moving
> slipstream air that isn't being slowed much at all (except for that
> pesky boundary layer with near-zero velocity at the surface...)?
> Was that clear?? Just looking for insight and understanding here :-)
>
> -Stormy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> On 26 Jul 2005, at 15:27, Chris W wrote:
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W
>> <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>>
>> sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ... the air coming out of the freash air vent is actually a
>>> measured 8 degrees F hotter than ambient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Really?! Out of curiosity, what air speed was that measurement
>> taken at?
>>
>>
>
> I'd also be interested to know how one measures the ambient
> temperature so one can compare the output of the temp sensor to
> ambient.
>
> At 170 kt TAS, the temperature increase due to ram rise would be
> about 7 deg F. I.e, if you took the air coming in the NACA scoop,
> and let it slow down so it is at rest with respect to the aircraft,
> you would expect its temperature to be about 7 deg F hotter than the
> ambient temperature. Just be glad you aren't racing for the
> Unlimited Gold at Reno. At the speeds those guys are running, the
> ram rise would be over 45 deg F, and the ambient temperature is
> already pretty hot.
>
> The ram rise in deg C is equal to the square of the TAS in kt divided
> by 7592.
> The ram rise in deg F is equal to the square of the TAS in mph
> divided by 5587.
>
> The amount of the ram rise sensed by the temperature sensor will
> vary, depending on the probe's recovery factor. Good quality probes
> supposedly have recovery factors of between 0.95 and 1, but some
> probes may have lower recovery factors. The temperature measured by
> the probe would be about:
>
> IAT=OAT+K*(TAS
> 2/7592)
>
> where IAT is the indicated air temperature reported by the probe, in
> deg C
> OAT is the actual ambient air temperature, in deg C,
> K is the probe's recovery factor, and
> TAS is the true airspeed in kt
> You may be more familiar with the classical equation that relates ram
> rise to Mach.
>
> total air temperature/ambient air temperature = (1 + 0.2 * M
> 2), with
> both temperatures expressed in either degrees Kelvin, or degrees
> Rankin). Or,
>
> OAT = (IAT + 273.15) / (1 + 0.2*K*M
> 2) - 273.15
>
> where where IAT is the indicated air temperature reported by the
> probe, in deg C,
> OAT is the actual ambient air temperature, in deg C,
> K is the probe's recovery factor, and
> M is the Mach number.
>
> The first time I saw the equation with TAS, I thought it must be an
> approximation, as we are always told that ram rise is a function of
> Mach. But, one day when I was bored, I dissected the equations and
> found that the equation with TAS was mathematically equivalent to the
> one with Mach.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
Mike Robertson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>I installed the probe in the NACA scope. It read hot. On the second plane I
installed it under the wing gap fairing. It read hot. Not as bad as the NACA
scope location but still high. The probe needs to be somewhere outboard on the
wing. I have seen several that were mounted on one of the access panels under
the wings, or very close to an access panel so it was easy to install.
>
>
>
Why not behind the canopy on the top of the plane?
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com
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: fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>Having been reading up on this with lyco articles and so forth, it is
>the manifold pressures not the rpm that seats the rings. It was not
>semantics you were discussing, rather RPM vs MP. With FP your stuck with
>high rpm to get the MP. What you do not want is a c/s prop at 2700rpm
>pulling 18".
>
>Lyco says run 75% power.
>
Yeah, Mike, but they don't want even a hint of having to fix something
on warranty. 75% is a great warranty.
> Engine shops say Max MP, rpm as high as you can stand it.
>
And I agree. Although engine shops will LOVE to fix your engine ..... I
doubt they see any problems relating to 100% power.
My experience with 100% power (or more) has been really good ..... never
had to pull a cylinder to rehone..
Linn
do not archive
>
>Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
>rvpilot@access4less.net wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
>>
>>Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the
>>
>>
>rings, it"s
>
>
>>high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against
>>
>>
>the cylinder walls
>
>
>>and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their
>>
>>
>best seal before a
>
>
>>layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring
>>
>>
>seating effectively ceases.
>
>
>>For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is
>>
>>
>complete. With
>
>
>>steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as
>>
>>
>evidenced by a
>
>
>>stabilized oil consumption.
>>
>>
>
>
>Granted. But those of us with fixed-pitch props have to resort to higher
>
>rpm in order to pull more manifold pressure.
>
>I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The point I was making is
>the engine should not be flown gingerly, it needs to develop a lot of
>power (rpm or MP, whatever your particular engine/prop requires) in
>order to rapidly and reliably seat the rings. You guys with the CS props
>
>can load the engine at lower rpm, us folks with the cheap props have to
>wind up our engines (2400-2600 rpm) to get high MP unless we are flying
>at sea level.
>
>That's why a lot of us fly our new planes with new engines without the
>pants and fairings so breaking in the cylinders won't result in higher
>than desired airspeed.
>
>Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Kevin Williams wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
>
>What baffles me is, if its so darn important to run the engine just right
>to get just the right break in characteristics . . . why isnt this done at
>the factory / re-build shop?
>
going through the shop at one time.
>It seems to me a really simple thing to do. Have a tension system that
>bolts on to where the prop would go and place the engine in a simple wind
>tunnel. I believe a 150MPH wind would be more than enough to keep the engine
>cool. Less speed if the air was air-conditioned.
>
Yes, but you have to buy the space for the 'breakin room/wind tunnel,
the load device and the fan to make 150 MPH wind. You also have to
baffle the engine for good air flow ...... see where this is headed???
And so far we're only talking 1 test cell.
>By breaking in the engine in a controlled environment you can ensure the
>engine and all cylinders remain at a constant temperature and MP.
>
Yes, that's true. But it would be expensive and breaking the engine in
..... in an airplane going somewhere puts the onus on the owner, not the
shop. Good idea, but I think the added expense would make it prohibitive.
Just MHO.
Linn
do not archive
>
>Kevin
>
>Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada
>
>
>From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:07:27 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
><mstewart@iss.net>
>
>Having been reading up on this with lyco articles and so forth, it is
>the manifold pressures not the rpm that seats the rings. It was not
>semantics you were discussing, rather RPM vs MP. With FP your stuck with
>high rpm to get the MP. What you do not want is a c/s prop at 2700rpm
>pulling 18".
>
>Lyco says run 75% power. Engine shops say Max MP, rpm as high as you can
>stand it.
>
>Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: fresh engines and new airplanes
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
>rvpilot@access4less.net wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
> >
> > Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the
>rings, it"s
> > high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against
>the cylinder walls
> > and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their
>best seal before a
> > layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring
>seating effectively ceases.
> > For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is
>complete. With
> > steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as
>evidenced by a
> > stabilized oil consumption.
>
>
>Granted. But those of us with fixed-pitch props have to resort to higher
>
>rpm in order to pull more manifold pressure.
>
>I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The point I was making is
>the engine should not be flown gingerly, it needs to develop a lot of
>power (rpm or MP, whatever your particular engine/prop requires) in
>order to rapidly and reliably seat the rings. You guys with the CS props
>
>can load the engine at lower rpm, us folks with the cheap props have to
>wind up our engines (2400-2600 rpm) to get high MP unless we are flying
>at sea level.
>
>That's why a lot of us fly our new planes with new engines without the
>pants and fairings so breaking in the cylinders won't result in higher
>than desired airspeed.
>
>Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
--
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Why not behind the canopy on the top of the plane?
The slipstream spirals over the plane. You'd inevitably have some sort of
mix of heated air and exhaust back there.
Why take a shortcut when the alternative is so simple? Just put your probe
out on the bottom of the wing...it's the lesser of all evils.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Also it can not be in direct sunlight. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Why not behind the canopy on the top of the plane?
The slipstream spirals over the plane. You'd inevitably have some sort of
mix of heated air and exhaust back there.
Why take a shortcut when the alternative is so simple? Just put your probe
out on the bottom of the wing...it's the lesser of all evils.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: rveighta <rveighta@earthlink.net>
Well, after getting many more responses about OAT probe location than I
ever dreamed, I've finally decided to mount it under the right wing. I'm
planning to attach it to the inside of the 2nd inspection panel, with just the
eighth inch diameter probe sticking out into the airstream. The threaded
base of the probe will be screwed into a small piece of aluminum which I'll
thread for the 1/4" base.
Thanks for the many good ideas.....
Walt Shipley
-----Original Message-----
From: DonVS <dsvs@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Also it can not be in direct sunlight. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Why not behind the canopy on the top of the plane?
The slipstream spirals over the plane. You'd inevitably have some sort of
mix of heated air and exhaust back there.
Why take a shortcut when the alternative is so simple? Just put your probe
out on the bottom of the wing...it's the lesser of all evils.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|