Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:16 AM - Re: MT Props delay (dick martin)
2. 04:53 AM - Re: MT Props delay (RV6 Flyer)
3. 06:24 AM - Re: Eustace Bowhay (Emrath)
4. 07:47 AM - Re: Performance Problem Analysis (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
5. 08:42 AM - Re: Update: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected (Bob J.)
6. 08:42 AM - Re: AOA & longer wing (was 6a level) (Tracy Crook)
7. 09:01 AM - Re: Performance Problem Analysis (Kevin Horton)
8. 09:13 AM - Re: Performance Problem Analysis (Kyle Boatright)
9. 09:45 AM - Re: Performance Problem Analysis (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
10. 10:31 AM - Re: Performance Problem Analysis (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
11. 10:31 AM - Re: Performance Problem Analysis (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
12. 11:02 AM - Re: Performance Problem Analysis (Mickey Coggins)
13. 02:26 PM - Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) ()
14. 10:34 PM - AFP purge valve ()
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: | Re: MT Props delay |
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Steve,
Suggest you consider a Aero Composites carbon fiber prop. It we be on
average 10 knots faster, same weight, has lightning protection, is
considerably stronger etc. ad infinitum. Also more expensive, but worth it.
Delivery is usually 70 to 90 days.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RV-List: MT Props delay
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
>
> Anybody know a faster way to get a MT Prop?
>
> Van's (MTs) wait time is currently 16 weeks.
>
> Looking for 2 blade, hydraulic. MTV15B/183-109
>
> Steve
> RV7A
>
>
>
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: MT Props delay |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Try another vendor.
http://www.lessdrag.com/lycomingpropeller.html
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,842 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: MT Props delay
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Steve,
Suggest you consider a Aero Composites carbon fiber prop. It we be on
average 10 knots faster, same weight, has lightning protection, is
considerably stronger etc. ad infinitum. Also more expensive, but worth it.
Delivery is usually 70 to 90 days.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RV-List: MT Props delay
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
>
> Anybody know a faster way to get a MT Prop?
>
> Van's (MTs) wait time is currently 16 weeks.
>
> Looking for 2 blade, hydraulic. MTV15B/183-109
>
> Steve
> RV7A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eustace Bowhay |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
Konrad, thanks for posting this. Eustace and I never met but we have
corresponded via Email and he was very patient and helpful with my
questions, even supplying me a much needed part for my FI system. May he
rest in Peace and his family be consoled. I'm sorry I cannot be at his
service to pay my respects!
Do not archive
Marty, Brentwood TN
Time: 05:21:15 PM PST US
From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Eustace Bowhay
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
To Eustace: May you rest in Peace and fly on forever
[Ed. This news hurts. The text below appears in this site's Safety section
and was written several months back. Eustace was kind enough to host RVTalk
#17. He passed away on Tuesday, apparently of complications from a stroke.
The RV community has lost one of its giants and our hearts go out to the
Bowhay family and friends. By Doug Reeves of www.vansairforce.com]
This is for those of you that have never met him, but it is also for the
one's
that did have the priviledge . . . .
"For RV pilots and builders who have never had the opportunity to meet
Eustace
Bowhay, here=92s a little background.
Eustace is one of the few people around who=92ve accumulated over 20,000
hours
of flying time without ever having a military or airline career. He spans
aviation
from before WW2 to the present day. His first flight, as a boy of 10 or 11,
was in a Gypsy Moth over his native Saskatchewan.
It=92s a great story...Eustace and his mother lived on a farm outside of
town,
and every weekend the weather permitted they=92d go into the city for
supplies
and a bit of recreation. He would spend part of his Saturday morning at
piano
lessons. Nothing in this world was going to make a pianist out of Eustace,
but
he went to please his mother and because she gave him a quarter so he could
go to the movies after his lesson.
Eustace soon discovered that the airport on the edge of town was far more
interesting
to him than any movie, so after his lesson he=92d go down and hang on the
fence until it was time to go, just hoping to see an airplane fly. He=92d
time
it carefully so he could run back to town and meet his mother at the
theatre...he
knew she=92d never approve of something so dangerous as flying!
After a few weeks of this, one of the local pilots on the other side of the
fence
motioned him over to a hangar and opened the back door. Completely
awestruck,
Eustace stepped through the door and into what was to become his world for
a lifetime.
In the hangar was a brand new Staggerwing, painted royal blue. Out in front,
a
pilot who needed to warm the oil in his Moth invited Eustace to occupy the
front
cockpit. Stricken to silence by his good fortune, Eustace pulled on a
leather
helmet and goggles and held on as the upright Gypsy engine rattled the Moth
into the air. They flew out over the prairie and over Eustace=92s home. When
they returned, Eustace realized he was late meeting his mother and dashed
into
town, maintaining a minimum altitude of about six inches the whole way.
Without
comment, he climbed into the car and home they went.
At the dinner table that evening, his uncle casually mentioned that an
airplane
had circled the farm several times earlier in the day. Did Eustace know
anything
about that? Oh, no, Eustace said. He=92d been at piano lessons and the
movies
the whole day. Everyone at the table broke into laughter. When his mother
handed him a mirror he saw why: the Gypsy had been spraying a fine mist back
over
the fuselage for the entire flight and the oily outline of the helmet and
goggles was clearly printed on his face. He looked like a surprised raccoon.
When Eustace tells this story, the memories of that day - more than seventy
years
ago now - are printed on his face as plainly as the outline of those
goggles.
He still remembers the smell of the paint and dope on the Staggerwing and
the
exhilaration of banking and seeing his home between the flying wires of the
Moth.
After that came flying and more flying. Eustace instructed thousands of
students
in the RCAF, some of whom died in combat just weeks later - he=92s never
fully
accepted that waste and a bit of grief is with him still. After the war he
instructed thousands more, as well as flying Navions and Aeronca Champs and
God
knows what else away from the factories and back to Canada.
Supported by his wife Nora, he formed his own company, providing charter air
service
all over the Canada and the Northern Territories. He flew and flew; in
Aztec,
in Cessnas, in Beavers and Otters. He acquired a P-51 from the Canadian
government and flew it all over the country keeping an eye on his
operations.
He owned and flew a DC-3 for many years. He=92s got 9000+ hours of water
operation...1000
hours of it in a Grumman Goose. He=92s landed parts of a bulldozer
on the edge of the Arctic Ocean in a Beech 18, helped weld the machine back
together
and build a landing strip and watched the bulldozer leave, intact, in
the hold of a Hercules that flew into the strip to retrieve it.
And all the while, one of his primary concerns was keeping other pilots
safe. He
preached, cajoled, and extolled safe flying at every opportunity, bringing
his
vast experience to bear and distilling it to benefit the newest of pilots.
We will never know just how many pilots are alive (and airplanes unbroken)
because
Eustace had a word with them, planting some seed of care and awareness that
allowed them to avoid danger.
He joined the RV ranks in the 1990s by building C-HAY, a 180 hp RV-6 which
he flew
on wheels, floats and amphibious floats. In the RV community he found many
low time pilots venturing into the world of relatively high performance and
became
their mentor. At the factory, Van=92s people learned to listen carefully
to the tall, white haired, slightly deaf Canadian fellow with the
suspenders.
There was a little "eh?" and a little "oot" in his speech, as well as a
whole
lot of humanity, wisdom and humor.
Eustace and Nora have been to many of Van=92s Homecomings and many RV pilots
have
met and talked with them. If you=92ve ever had a chance to sit and talk with
them, you=92ll have realized that you were in the presence of truly fine
people
Now recovering from a stroke in his hometown of Salmon Arm, British
Columbia, Eustace
is still pursuing his passion for helping pilots fly safely and skillfully.
It is our incredibly good fortune that he's part of the RV world and that
modern technology allows us to essentially sit around the campfire and
listen
to him pass on knowledge gained over a career that has spanned 70% of
powered
aviation.
Don=92t miss the chance - there aren=92t many like him. Heck, there aren=92t
any
like him. Eustace is one of a kind."
Arrangements (from a Ken Hoshowski email fwd'd to me)
Just to let you know that the service gathering for Eustace will be this
Saturday
at 1:30 at Fischer's Funeral Services, 4060 1st. Ave S.W.
Salmon Arm.
Toll free phone 1-888-816-1117 This is going to be a tea only, a celebration
of
life service will be held at a later date in Eustace's home town in Alberta.
Eustace's wife's name is Nora and the home address is
#6-350 Hudson St.
N.W, Salmon Arm B.C., V1E1P4,
phone 250 832-3273.
That is about all I can tell (you) for now.
Ken Hoshowski
RV6 C-FKEH
Salmon Arm B.C.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Performance Problem Analysis |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and their
inlet area that make the difference? What's the diameter of the openings?
In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings would that theoretically
lower drag??
Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom too?
Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful compare?
Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin"
>
> Dave,
> I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
> that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a standard
> Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
> as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
> the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
> this cowl.
> Dick Martin
> RV8 N233M
> the fast one
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Burden"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: David Burden
> >
> > Hello Listers,
> >
> > I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
> > find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination of
> > features:
> >
> > Flying RV7a or 9a
> > Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
> > Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
> > Fixed pitch propellor
> >
> > The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges you
> > may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
> >
> > Please respond off list to:
> >
> > hootsnik@sbcglobal.net
> >
> > Thanks in advance for the help.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and their
inlet areathat make the difference? What's the diameter of the openings? In
other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings would that theoretically
lower drag??
Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom too?
Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful compare?
Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "dick martin" martin@gbonline.com
-- RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <MARTIN@GBONLINE.COM>
Dave,
I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a standard
Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
this cowl.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Burden" <HOOTSNIK@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
To: <RV-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
Subject: RV-List:
Perfor
mance Problem Analysis
-- RV-List message posted by: David Burden <HOOTSNIK@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Hello Listers,
I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination of
features:
Flying RV7a or 9a
Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
Fixed pitch propellor
The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges you
may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
Please respond off list to:
hootsnik@sbcglobal.net
Thanks in advance for the help.
Dave
<
BR>
hank y
ou for your generous support!
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Update: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob J." <rocketbob@gmail.com>
Paul, I'm guessing its a Simmonds fuel injection system, in the picture the
fuel distributor (spider) is part of the servo. SI1040A is titled
"Maintenance procedures applicable to Simmonds #530 fuel injection system."
Its a two pager with not much useful info.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 4/21/06, Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks, Bob. Yeah, it's definately not a bendix
> system, but it works very well...never any vapor lock
> and starts on the first blade every time, after 16
> years of service and 800 hours. Can't find anyting in
> the logbook regarding maintenance issues.
>
> Paul Besing
>
> --- "Bob J." <rocketbob@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob J."
> > <rocketbob@gmail.com>
> >
> > Yep...this is not a bendix system, and the name
> > eludes me right now. I have
> > seen it before and and the spider and lines are on
> > the bottom side as you
> > describe. I have service instructions for this type
> > of system, if I look it
> > up in my foot thick stack of Lycoming service
> > instructions I should be able
> > to tell you what it is tonight....
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Japundza
> > RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
> >
> >
> > On 4/21/06, Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing
> > <pbesing@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > Pardon my ignorance on fuel injections, but here's
> > how
> > > the routing goes:
> > >
> > > Fuel out of the firewall to servo. (I'm assuming
> > the
> > > servo is where the mixture cable plugs into)
> > >
> > > There are two lines that go from the servo the to
> > the
> > > divider (the thing on the sump where a carb would
> > go,
> > > and where the spider is..the spider is on the
> > bottom
> > > of my engine, not on the top like most). One fuel
> > > line to the left side, and one to the right (or
> > from
> > > one side, as a return)
> > >
> > > Then there is a third line out of the servo back
> > to
> > > the fuel selector or tee that fills the left tank.
> > > Not sure of the make..there is a data tag on it
> > that I
> > > briefly read the other day but it wasn't anything
> > > familiar.
> > >
> > > There is a fuel pressure transducer from the
> > original
> > > installation on one of the lines from the servo to
> > the
> > > divider, so I'm assuming that's where I'll put my
> > fuel flow.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: AOA & longer wing (was 6a level) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Thanks to all who answered the AOA question, just the info I needed.
There were two reasons for the 3 feet more wing span. Wanted to keep the same
(or slightly lower) wing loading as my light RV-4 (now around 920 lbs). Engine
will be a 300 HP 3 rotary Mazda 20B. FWF weight will be same as IO - 360 with
CS prop.
Low stall speed is important to me when doing engine development stuff. The other
reason was mission profile. Plane will be used primarily for long distance
cruising between here (Florida) and Colorado where the destination airport
is at 8000 MSL. Cruise altitude target is 18,000 ft or more where the longer
wing will help (I think). The big engine was needed so that ample HP would be
available at that altitude. (I hate turbos).
Top speed was not a priority and I will never know what it is. My biggest worry
is that the longer wing will flutter and self destruct before the engine runs
out of steam. Flutter tests to factory redline (230 mph) will be approached
with utmost caution.
Tracy Crook
13B powered RV-4 - 1550 hrs
20B powered RV-8 - Hangar queen so far
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net<mailto:klwerner@comcast.net>>
Hi Tracy,
How come you extended your std. RV-8 Wings to become 3ft. longer?
Just curious to find out your reason.
Do not archive
SNIP
...on my "long wing" RV-8. Span is 3 feet longer than stock ...
SNIP
Tracy Crook
--
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Performance Problem Analysis |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
> inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
> diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl
> and redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
> bottom too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a
> meaningful compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
Lucky,
As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the
less cooling drag there is.
2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow
as the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and
the greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
circumference for a given area, so there is less frictional drag
along the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some
pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling
effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to get the
same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by
having a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and
reducing the size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers,
but I believe most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so
there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe that most
people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the
size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Performance Problem Analysis |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
Sam James used to sell (and may still sell) round inlets that you can
retrofit into your stock cowl.
I looked into it when I was building my plane and decided that 1) It would
be a lot of work. 2) Even worse, the work would be *serious* fiberglass
work. 3) It would be a shame to mess up the nice factory cowling.
If I recall correctly, Sam's recommendation was that without a plenum (which
he sold), the cowl mod probably wasn't worth the effort.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <luckymacy@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and
> their inlet area that make the difference? What's the diameter of the
> openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings
> would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom
> too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful
> compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin"
>>
>> Dave,
>> I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
>> that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a
>> standard
>> Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
>> as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
>> the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
>> this cowl.
>> Dick Martin
>> RV8 N233M
>> the fast one
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Burden"
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
>> Subject: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
>>
>>
>> > --> RV-List message posted by: David Burden
>> >
>> > Hello Listers,
>> >
>> > I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
>> > find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination
>> > of
>> > features:
>> >
>> > Flying RV7a or 9a
>> > Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
>> > Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
>> > Fixed pitch propellor
>> >
>> > The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges
>> > you
>> > may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
>> >
>> > Please respond off list to:
>> >
>> > hootsnik@sbcglobal.net
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for the help.
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and
> their inlet areathat make the difference? What's the diameter of the
> openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings
> would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom
> too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful
> compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "dick martin" martin@gbonline.com
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <MARTIN@GBONLINE.COM>
>
> Dave,
> I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
> that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a standard
> Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
> as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
> the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
> this cowl.
> Dick Martin
> RV8 N233M
> the fast one
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Burden" <HOOTSNIK@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> To: <RV-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
> Subject: RV-List:
> Perfor
> mance Problem Analysis
>
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: David Burden <HOOTSNIK@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
>
> Hello Listers,
>
> I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
> find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination
> of
> features:
>
> Flying RV7a or 9a
> Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
> Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
> Fixed pitch propellor
>
> The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges you
> may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
>
> Please respond off list to:
>
> hootsnik@sbcglobal.net
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Dave
>
>
> <
> BR>
>
>
> hank y
> ou for your generous support!
>
>
>
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: Performance Problem Analysis |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Any engineers out there care to hazard a guess what the percentage of gain is for
each of the 3 referenced sources?
ie, for the 10 knot gain in using the Sam James setup, 70% from the combo of the
smaller area openings and use of a integrated/sealed plenum and 30 percent from
exterior cowl shape?
If it was the other way around, I wouldn't even consider it a worthwhile project....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>
> On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
> > inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
> > diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl
> > and redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
> >
> > Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
> > bottom too?
> >
> > Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a
> > meaningful compare?
> >
> > Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
>
>
> Lucky,
>
> As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
>
> 1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
> that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
> you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
> that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
> the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the
> less cooling drag there is.
>
> 2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow
> as the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and
> the greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
>
> 3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
> circumference for a given area, so there is less frictional drag
> along the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some
> pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling
> effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to get the
> same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
>
> I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by
> having a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and
> reducing the size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers,
> but I believe most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so
> there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe that most
> people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the
> size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Any engineers out there care to hazard a guess what the percentage of gain is for
each of the 3 referenced sources?
ie, for the 10 knot gain in using the Sam James setup, 70% from the combo of the
smaller area openings and use of a integrated/sealed plenum and 30 percent from
exterior cowl shape?
If it was the other way around, I wouldn't even consider it a worthwhile project....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton khorton01@rogers.com
-- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl
and redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
bottom too?
Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a
meaningful compare?
&g
t; <BR
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
Lucky,
As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the
less cooling drag there is.
2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow
as the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and
the greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
circumference for a given area, so there is less frictio
nal dr
ag
along the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some
pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling
effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to get the
same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by
having a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and
reducing the size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers,
but I believe most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so
there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe that most
people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the
size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
======
=================================================
&g
t; <BR
>
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: | Performance Problem Analysis |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
From what I have been told most of it is from a combination of streamlining the
inlets, reducing their size, and from pressure recovery. The plenum helps
but is mainly to manage the cooling.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Any engineers out there care to hazard a guess what the percentage of gain is for
each of the 3 referenced sources?
ie, for the 10 knot gain in using the Sam James setup, 70% from the combo of the
smaller area openings and use of a integrated/sealed plenum and 30 percent from
exterior cowl shape?
If it was the other way around, I wouldn't even consider it a worthwhile project....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>
> On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
> > inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
> > diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl and
> > redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
> >
> > Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
> > bottom too?
> >
> > Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful
> > compare?
> >
> > Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
>
>
> Lucky,
>
> As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
>
> 1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
> that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
> you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
> that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
> the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the less
> cooling drag there is.
>
> 2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow as
> the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and the
> greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
>
> 3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
> circumference for a given area, so there is less frictional drag along
> the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some pressure
> loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling effectiveness, and
> means you probably need a bit more air to get the same amount of
> cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
>
> I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by having
> a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and reducing the
> size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers, but I believe
> most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so there is quite a
> bit of leakage there. I also believe that most people don't reduce the
> size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the size of the inlets, you
> won't realize any performance increase.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
Any engineers out there care to hazard a guess what the percentage of gain is for
each of the 3 referenced sources?
ie, for the 10 knot gain in using the Sam James setup, 70% from the combo of the
smaller area openings and use of a integrated/sealed plenum and 30 percent from
exterior cowl shape?
If it was the other way around, I wouldn't even consider it a worthwhile project....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton khorton01@rogers.com
-- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl
and redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
bottom too?
Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a
meaningful compare?
&g
t; <BR
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
Lucky,
As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the
less cooling drag there is.
2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow
as the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and
the greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
circumference for a given area, so there is less frictio
nal dr
ag
along the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some
pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling
effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to get the
same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by
having a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and
reducing the size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers,
but I believe most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so
there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe that most
people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the
size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
&g
t; <BR
>
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: | Performance Problem Analysis |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Kevin pretty much hit it on the head. You are looking for a couple of things
in a cowl. One is to have easy bends for the inlet and outlet air to pass through
so you are not imparting much of the airflow's energy into the airframe
(more drag). Also you want the best pressure recovery ratio you can get. Essentially
whatever the pressure is of the air entering the cowl you want to try
and make it the same number as it exits. Any deviation from 1 to 1 will cause
drag and/or cooling problems. You then use the venturi effect to either slow
or speed up the airflow inside the cowling to increase or decrease the amount
of heat transfer from the engine. These two areas are where the James cowl
makes the difference.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets
> and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the diameter of
> the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the
> openings would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
> bottom too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful
> compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
Lucky,
As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air that comes
in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so you need to bring
in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact that the plenum chamber has
less leakage means less air is needed, so the inlets are smaller. The less air
you bring in the inlets, the less cooling drag there is.
2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow as the air
expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and the greatest amount of
pressure once the air has expanded.
3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest circumference for
a given area, so there is less frictional drag along the walls of the inlet.
Any frictional drag results in some pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces
the cooling effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to
get the same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by having a plenum
chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and reducing the size of the inlets.
Many people add plenum chambers, but I believe most of them don't have a good
seal at the inlet, so there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe
that most people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce
the size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Performance Problem Analysis |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Any engineers out there care to hazard a guess what the percentage of
> gain is for each of the 3 referenced sources?
>
> ie, for the 10 knot gain in using the Sam James setup, 70% from the
> combo of the smaller area openings and use of a integrated/sealed
> plenum and 30 percent from exterior cowl shape?
The cowl shape has got to be a lot. It is much smaller at
the front, and since it is 4 inches longer, the transition
to the full fuselage is much smoother. They have some
pics on their website that kind of show what I mean:
http://www.jamesaircraft.com/Our_Products.html
However, when you see it in person, compared to the standard
Van's cowl, the difference is striking.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Dan:
I talked to my aviation lawyer less than a year ago and
my info, John Denver's estate did not sue the builder.
It would be ridiculous a multimillionaire (estate) suing a guy
with $2 in the bank. Please send your source/ refrence. God
rest his soul, Dear John was flying real low on altitude and gas,
and had no license after a few DWI's. I think you are wrong.
(John Denver flew into the water. The fuel selector was in
a non-standard place and was thought that he accidentally
flew into the water when reaching for it. However he was
very low and was out or almost out of fuel. Lesson learned
BUILD YOU RV PER PLANS and DON'T DO WEIRD
ONE OFF SYSTEM DESIGNS YOU DREAM UP, at
least if you don't want to be suied.)
Your case TWO. Again no offense but facts, case number,
names, not rumor, hearsay and urban legend. This is
what I am talking about. You throw out a scenario that is
hard to believe, no offense. I would not be surprised if
someone at AOPA made this up.
There have been people's estates who sue the pilot or
pilot estate for killing the passenger, their family member,
but that has NOTHING to do with selling a plane and being
sued as the builder or manufacture.
(BY THE WAY, waiver and hold harmless waivers work for
passengers. Whether the hold up how know it would no
hurt. ALSO have a LAWYER write these up. It is worth the
few $100 bucks to have it written verses a generic boiler-plate
form you found or dreamed up.)
If you have examples: Names, places, state, city where the
lawsuit is filed I'll look into it. I still stand by NEVER.
Your other points and conjecture is correct and interesting.
Yes lawsuits are expensive even if you win. However put
that into the agreement. The agreement says if you buy and
fly this home-built you can DIE, you accept all risk and waive
all legal rights to sue, you the builder. If you do get sued from
some 3rd party (a passenger) the buyer will pay all your legal
fees. That is the way it should be anyway. That would cut
down the stupid frivolous lawsuits.
As I said these agreements should work but there is no
legal precedence, since no builder has been sued for
building (that I or my aviation lawyer knows of). It is better
than nothing. CAN YOU BE SUED. you bet your sweat
rudder you can. However as I said your dog bites someone
you can get suied. Build a good plane, don't sell to an idiot,
get a waiver drawn up by a Lawyer and allow or insist that
the buyers faimly and their lawyer read and approve it.
If for some reason you got sued the defense should not
break the bank. Slam dunk, the buyer killed them self for
say, doing low level acro.
Cheers George
>From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01@butter.toast.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts?
>
>posted by: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01@butter.toast.net>
>
>"Never" is a big word. I can think of two lawsuits against builders
>just from casual reading of the news in the last few years.
>Lawsuit 1: In the John Denver crash, the newspapers reported that
>Denver's relatives sued several people including the builder. I don't
>know the outcome however.
>
>Lawsuit 2: This one was somewhat complicated involving several sales
>and owners. Step 1: Individual A builds aircraft and flies for several
>years. Sells aircraft to individual B.
>Step 2: B flies aircraft for several years and then sells aircraft
>to individual C. Step 3: C flies aircraft for several years. Then one
>day he takes a friend's wife for a ride and performs low level aerobatics
>in view of the husband. Crashes killing himself and friend's wife.
>Step 4: Husband sues individual A.
>Step 5: Individual A sues B. I don't know the outcome of the
>lawsuits.
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <erichweaver@cox.net>
Howdy
Thought I would share with the list the folowing question I e-mailed to Airflow
Performance and their reply:
"I have one of your fuel injection units on my new IO-360 B1B engine and RV-7A
aircraft. It would seem prudent to have a spring or other similar device on the
purge valve control arm to insure that if the cable controlling the pure valve
were to fail, the control arm would remain in the normal run position. Do
you agree, and if so, do you offer a product for this purpose? If not, perhaps
you have some suggestions for obtaining or fabricating such a device?"
Here is the replay that I received:
"We typically recommend that the system is installed with good quality cables with
rod ends. This should eliminate any need for return springs. I always ask;
"Did you put a return spring on the mixture control or throttle?" But of course
the choice is yours. If you feel a return spring on the purge valve will
give you piece of mind, by all means do it. I have seen some installations
use a simple extension spring connected to the purge valve lever to a adel clamp
on a push rod tube to pull the lever to the run position."
Don Rivera
Airflow Performance
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! --
|