Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:44 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?=)
2. 04:07 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Jim Sears)
3. 04:10 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Vern W.)
4. 04:11 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Jim Sears)
5. 05:20 AM - Re: LOP with carb (Kelly Patterson)
6. 05:45 AM - Re: Re: LOP with carb (Alex Peterson)
7. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: Oshkosh Traffic (John Huft)
8. 07:56 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
9. 07:56 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Charlie Kuss)
10. 08:49 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (mike jr)
11. 09:44 AM - DC Load Centers (D Paul Deits)
12. 09:46 AM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect (Michael Hudson)
13. 09:54 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
14. 10:00 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Jim Sears)
15. 10:13 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (linn Walters)
16. 11:08 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Mickey Coggins)
17. 11:21 AM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Ron Lee)
18. 11:24 AM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect (Terry Watson)
19. 11:31 AM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect (Mitchell Faatz)
20. 11:40 AM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect (linn Walters)
21. 12:01 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not ()
22. 12:01 PM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect (Richard McBride)
23. 01:02 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Charlie Kuss)
24. 01:17 PM - OSH Parking Comments (Wheeler North)
25. 01:51 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Charlie Kuss)
26. 02:14 PM - Fuel Injection or Not (Charlie Kuss)
27. 02:55 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (JAMES BOWEN)
28. 02:59 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Jim Sears)
29. 03:25 PM - Re: OSH Parking Comments (gert)
30. 03:33 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
31. 04:30 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (RV6 Flyer)
32. 04:32 PM - Re: Fiberglass tips for tip up (Frank Stringham)
33. 04:59 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Konrad L. Werner)
34. 05:37 PM - Re: Fiberglass tips for tip up (LarryRobertHelming)
35. 06:24 PM - Tiedowns? (Albert Gardner)
36. 06:26 PM - Re: Kitfox for partial trade (RaNDY Frost)
37. 08:33 PM - Re: Tiedowns? (Konrad L. Werner)
38. 08:33 PM - Re: Tiedowns? (Ron Lee)
39. 08:37 PM - RV-7/7A emp & wing kit for sale (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
40. 08:48 PM - RV Construction Tapes (Joe Radford)
41. 09:22 PM - Re: OSH Parking Comments (Larry Bowen)
42. 09:48 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (linn Walters)
43. 10:26 PM - Re: Re: LOP with carb (Ed Holyoke)
44. 10:26 PM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect (Ed Holyoke)
45. 10:26 PM - Re: Fuel Injected - or Not (Ed Holyoke)
46. 11:15 PM - Re: Re: LOP with carb (Dan Checkoway)
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: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
Another reason for FI would be if you do any negative G aerobatics ' I
believe that float style carburetted engines cannot cope with negative
Gs.
Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
Michele
RV8 ' Fuselage
PS ' negative Gs does not have to be the wrenching loops and turns one
sees
at air shows, it can be as simple as just flying straight upside down,
or
not doing +G figures quite as well as one should.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich, Paul
Sent: lundi 12 juin 2006 20:33
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
building
an airplane: it=92s ok to change one=92s mind.
I=92m about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a
lot of
research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision ' a new
180
hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a
buddy casually posed the question: =93Why fuel injection?=94 and I
realized that
other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling
answer
as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump
installation complexity.
I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn=92t a compelling
driver.
So a question for all you old hands out there ' Is fuel injection
really
worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis
of
why or why not?
Paul Valovich
Booger
-8A QB
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>> A good friend has an O-320 from Powersport with a carb and no primer in
>> his RV-6a. It is a total pain to start when it is cold. He has run the
>> battery down a number of times trying to get it to start.<<
I've never understood not having a primer. The engine can be harder to
start and could cause one to have an engine fire. I have a primer system
and have never run a battery down, even when it's really cold.
>>you forgot...
After they install and connect a heat muff for carb heat, carb heat control
cable, primer hoses, primer pump, carb temp sensor, carb temp sensor wiring,
.....<<
Excuse me; but, I don't have a carb temp sensor and wiring. I do have the
primer and carb heat. Both were easy to install. Since I've never had to
use the carb heat on either of my Lycoming powered airplanes, I don't
consider carb ice a major problem for the engines. The Continental I had on
my C172 was another matter. :-(
>> The reason I chose fuel injection:
1. No carb heat
2. I had been in an RV and it would sputter when we were down side up.
3. I had been told that Fuel Injection would tolerate water in the fuel
better.<<
I guess these are good reasons for this contributor; but, none make me jump
up and take notice. As I said, carb ice hasn't been a problem for my
Lycomings. Since I try to keep the top side up, during flights, I don't
have the sputter problems. One who prefers to fly upside down (and have
everything in the cabin trying to go through the canopy) may want fuel
injection, though. I try to keep water out of my fuel systems and have
never had problems with water in my fuel. Sure, I do get some out of the
sumps, from time to time; but, I've never had an engine fail because of
water in the gas. That's with my using mogas, as well. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
The original poster is deciding on whether to order his new engine with or
without FI, not convert an existing engine.
I don't know about Aerosport, but I bought a brand new TMX-IO360 w/Airflow
Performance FI from Mattituck (it arrived just last week) and the differenc
e
in price BETWEEN the standard carb engine and going to the AFP FI was only
$700.
For me, that was a no brainer going with the FI at that price difference
because of the already mentioned advantages. In fact, I went one step
further and paid the additional $1000 for the "Flow Matching" option that
gives you the ability to lean very exactingly by the engines ability to kee
p
all four cylinders running at the same fuel flow.
So even at the additional $1700 for the way I went, it was still a no
brainer.
I admit that if were actually flying with a carbed engine, I would probably
seriously wonder if I wanted to spend more than $3000 to change it over, bu
t
that's not an issue with a brand new engine order.
Vern
RV7-A
Houston, TX
On 6/12/06, Valovich, Paul <pvalovich@dcscorp.com> wrote:
>
> Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
> building an airplane: it's ok to change one's mind.
>
>
> I'm about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot
> of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision ' a n
ew
> 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However,
a
> buddy casually posed the question: "Why fuel injection?" and I realized t
hat
> other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answe
r
> as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump
> installation complexity.
>
>
> I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn't a compelling
> driver.
>
>
> So a question for all you old hands out there ' Is fuel injection reall
y
> worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>
>
> Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of
> why or why not?
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Booger
>
> -8A QB
>
>
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>> Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread. I have no clue
>> about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs vs FI,
>> but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI than
>> most carb equipped planes do. A noticable amount less. I have flown
>> many, many hours side by side with other RV's, on long cross country
>> flights, and at cruises in the 155 - 160 knot TAS range, where I burn
>> between 1 and 2 gallons per hour less (this is at MAP's of about 22",
>> 2300 rpm, relatively low percent power, maybe 58 to 60%). How many of you
>> cruise with fuel flows
of 7.1 to 7.3 gph, at 155 to 160 ktas? Most carbs cannot be run, even with
electronic ignition (a big factor), in the LOP region. I do not have much
experience with my plane in the 75% power regime, but the differences would
be expected to be even greater there, since keeping the engine out of the
"red zone" (higher cht's, among other nasty combustion effects) is more
important there, and tends to spread the LOP/ROP fuel flows even more.<<
Alas, my little 150hp engine will not pull my -6A at those speeds at the
altitudes I fly at. With that, I do fly at 75% power, most of the time. At
that setting, it gets about 8gph on a cross country flight. If I pull mine
back to a lesser setting, of say 2300 rpms, mine will also get better fuel
usage per hour. I've gotten as low as 6gph while taking up Young Eagles. I
use 2200 rpms for that. Granted, I can't use the LOP method for leaning;
but, my use of mogas doesn't require major changes in my flying habits to
save money.
>> Even at 1 gph savings, it equates to something like $3000 worth of fuel
>> at today's prices that I've saved up to now in 759 hours of flying my
>> RV.<<
That's fairly substantial and something most of us could have if we throttle
back from 75% power. My savings during that same period would be at least
$6K on mogas while flying at 75% power. That's knowing I'd be saving at
least a dollar per gallon over the cost of 100LL, on average. Today, it's
$1.31 per gallon difference.
Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money on his
flying. He may also have a very clean airplane. Mine isn't; so, I do have
drag that make mine a little slower. I don't care because I get to build
more time in my airplane, that way. I kinda like that. Mogas allows me to
afford it. That's an option not available to FI engines.
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
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: LOP with carb |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kelly Patterson" <kbob@cox.net>
I have to throw in my 2 cents on this one. My initial thought was to run a
FI system, but the simplicity & budget of the carb won out.
The bonus was the economy is better than expected. The engine is an O-320 w/
9.2:1 CR and a single Emag. The EGT's are only equal during WOT operation,
otherwise they are 100 degrees off (some rich & some lean). I can get to
about 30 LOP before the engine runs rougher and is unhappy. Fuel burns are
7.0-7.2 depending on altitude. This is at 155 kts in a 6A dragging steps,
fixed pitch Sensenich and a nose gear around. So the answer to the question
below is that carbs can run economically.
How does this compare to others - I don't know - but I'm happy with the
results. You make choices and move forward. I'll spend the thousands I saved
on fuel and go places. Have fun everyone!
Kelly Patterson
PHX, AZ
RV-6A 64 hours
----------______________________
Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread. I have no clue
about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs vs FI,
but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI than most
carb equipped planes do. A noticeable amount less. I have flown many, many
hours side by side with other RV's, on long cross country flights, and at
cruises in the 155 - 160 knot TAS range, where I burn between 1 and 2
gallons per hour less (this is at MAP's of about 22", 2300 rpm, relatively
low percent power, maybe 58 to 60%). How many of you cruise with fuel flows
of 7.1 to 7.3 gph, at 155 to 160 ktas? Most carbs cannot be run, even with
electronic ignition (a big factor), in the LOP region. I do not have much
experience with my plane in the 75% power regime, but the differences would
be expected to be even greater there, since keeping the engine out of the
"red zone" (higher cht's, among other nasty combustion effects) is more
important there, and tends to spread the LOP/ROP fuel flows even more.
Even at 1 gph savings, it equates to something like $3000 worth of fuel at
today's prices that I've saved up to now in 759 hours of flying my RV.
I would welcome flying side by side with anyone wanting hard data,
particularly where so many variables are involved.
For those building and trying to decide, I simply have offered another
viewpoint.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 759 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: LOP with carb |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kelly Patterson" <kbob@cox.net>
>
> I have to throw in my 2 cents on this one. My initial thought
> was to run a FI system, but the simplicity & budget of the
> carb won out.
>
> The bonus was the economy is better than expected. The engine
> is an O-320 w/
> 9.2:1 CR and a single Emag. The EGT's are only equal during
> WOT operation, otherwise they are 100 degrees off (some rich
> & some lean). I can get to about 30 LOP before the engine
> runs rougher and is unhappy. Fuel burns are
> 7.0-7.2 depending on altitude. This is at 155 kts in a 6A
> dragging steps, fixed pitch Sensenich and a nose gear around.
> So the answer to the question below is that carbs can run
> economically.
>
> How does this compare to others - I don't know - but I'm
> happy with the results. You make choices and move forward.
> I'll spend the thousands I saved on fuel and go places. Have
> fun everyone!
>
> Kelly Patterson
> PHX, AZ
> RV-6A 64 hours
Kelly,
You have a nice setup, which seems to be well balanced. We have a 7A here
which has a carb and is also well balanced (with respect to fuel/air charge
to each cylinder). However, it seems to be more the exception than the
rule, and seems to be luck of the draw.
Again, side by side flight, equalizing ground speeds, is the only real way
to know one's true fuel efficiency compared to others.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 759 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: Oshkosh Traffic |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
For those who don't know, Jeff is one of the volunteers who park us
every year, so you are getting this from the horse's mouth (just an
expression, Jeff ).
One other option is to arrive about Thursday morning. By then many are
leaving, having had all the aviation they can drink from a fire hose.
Lots of parking opening up, and still half the show to see.
If need be, our loyal parkers will steal space from the glass-backward
crowd.
John
RV8 Nuisance
Jeff Point wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> Maybe somebody else can comment on the parking situation from personal experience.
>
> You'll have no trouble getting a parking spot in RV land on Saturday morning.
Parking doesn't really get tight until about late Monday into Tuesday. By Wednesday
people begin leaving and spots open up. Monday through Wednesday are
the best days for RV-looking.
>
> With that said, we are getting the same amount of space as last year, to park
what will undoubtably be more RVs than last year. We'll likely end up having
to tail planes into rows in order to fit them in, so nose-gear guys, bring your
tow bars.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
Vern you paid $1000 for flow matching?
Holy Cow!
That's outrageous.
Worst case of having to do 2 iterations of nozzles would have cost you
$100 on a 4 banger. I suppose if you did not have a good engine monitor
for all cylinders then you would be stuck paying this if you wanted it.
But man, that's a big nut to swallow. I wrote a small article on flow
matching here: http://www2.mstewart.net:8080/super8/nozzles/index.htm
I was surprised to read the post about Inj being more maint. Prone. I
certainly have not experienced that myself or with anyone I know. My
experience has been the opposite. Ice(inj wins), inverted(inj wins),
economy (inj wins), ease of installation (no carb heat and cables), and
maint(inj wins in my experience) were the reasons I went injected twice.
Best,
Mike
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W.
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
The original poster is deciding on whether to order his new engine with
or without FI, not convert an existing engine.
I don't know about Aerosport, but I bought a brand new TMX-IO360
w/Airflow Performance FI from Mattituck (it arrived just last week) and
the difference in price BETWEEN the standard carb engine and going to
the AFP FI was only $700.
For me, that was a no brainer going with the FI at that price difference
because of the already mentioned advantages. In fact, I went one step
further and paid the additional $1000 for the "Flow Matching" option
that gives you the ability to lean very exactingly by the engines
ability to keep all four cylinders running at the same fuel flow.
So even at the additional $1700 for the way I went, it was still a no
brainer.
I admit that if were actually flying with a carbed engine, I would
probably seriously wonder if I wanted to spend more than $3000 to change
it over, but that's not an issue with a brand new engine order.
Vern
RV7-A
Houston, TX
On 6/12/06, Valovich, Paul <pvalovich@dcscorp.com> wrote:
Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
building an airplane: it's ok to change one's mind.
I'm about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a
lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision -
a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport.
However, a buddy casually posed the question: "Why fuel injection?" and
I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no
compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional
cost and pump installation complexity.
I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn't a compelling
driver.
So a question for all you old hands out there - Is fuel injection really
worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis
of why or why not?
Paul Valovich
Booger
-8A QB
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
At 06:59 AM 6/13/2006, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>
>snipped
>
>Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money on
>his flying. He may also have a very clean airplane. Mine isn't;
>so, I do have drag that make mine a little slower. I don't care
>because I get to build more time in my airplane, that way. I kinda
>like that. Mogas allows me to afford it. That's an option not
>available to FI engines.
>
>Jim Sears in KY
>EAA Tech Counselor
Jim
What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you are
referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct. However,
any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to 1 or 8.5 to
1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to 1 pistons (160 hp
320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require using premium (91
octane or better) Mogas.
The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect
anyone willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds of
payload (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't
really care about economy, like you and I.
Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
mogas will yield the best economy.
Charlie Kuss
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: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
PLEASE TELL YOUR WEBMASTER TO TAKE ME OF THEIR LIST I DON"T KNOW HOW THEY GOT MY
ADDRESS PLEASE I AM TRIED OF YOUR JUNK MAILS TO MY BOX PLEASE I DON"T WANT YOUR
SPAM HERE.
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
On the Control Vision / Anywhere Map website, as well as in Van's
catalog are several prewired 'synthetic' fuse circuit boards.
What experience has anyone had good or bad. If you wish you may contact
me directly at pdeits@comcast.net.
Same question re: the Lamar MC-10
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: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active and
contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from its
fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver. That
circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world. It is also
not going to like the corona traveling down each of the spark plug wires
making a high noise samba line.
>From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not locate
that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
On 6/12/06, Stan Jones <stan.jones@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> You can get BNC connecters that go through a bulkhead.
> I have some.
> Stan
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* Ron Patterson <scc_ron@yahoo.com>
> *Date:* 06/13/06 03:30:58
> *To:* rv-list-digest@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
>
> *Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for
> my GPS antenna?*
> **
> *I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling.
> What I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a
> proper firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the
> cowl without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every time.*
> **
> *Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?*
> **
> *Appreciate your ideas.*
> *
> Ron
> N8ZD - just weeks now!
> *
>
>
> <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=409&lang=9>
>
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
>
> Jim
> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you are
> referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct. However,
> any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to 1 or 8.5 to 1
> pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to 1 pistons (160 hp
> 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require using premium (91
> octane or better) Mogas.
> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect anyone
> willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds of payload
> (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't really care
> about economy, like you and I.
> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
> mogas will yield the best economy.
> Charlie Kuss
>
Charlie,
I was hoping someone would bring that up. When I had my engine on the
S1S Pitt's, it had a diet of 93 octane (or whatever octane it was back
then) Shell or Amoco. They finally went to an alcohol additive in this
part of the Midwest and I quit using it. I have a bendix RSA and I
couldn't tell any difference in 100 LL or Shell or Amoco, absolutely
none. I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going.
It goes like a Duracell rabbit
Phil, in Illinois RV6 181RV
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: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you > are
> referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct.
> However, any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to > 1 or
> 8.5 to 1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to >1 pistons (160
> hp 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require > using premium (91
> octane or better) Mogas.
If one sticks with the spirit of the STCs, I found no fuel injected engines
listed as approved for auto gas. It could be that the fuel injection system
is more prone to vapor locking. I don't know. I do know that I just looked
at EAA's STC and found no engines starting with IO- in the list. (I've
always assumed IO means fuel injected; so, correct me if I'm wrong. ) My
list of engines from Petersen is pretty old; but, it shows none, either.
That doesn't mean that the higher compression engines weren't shown, though.
They just need more octane, as I've said before.
If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto gas in a
fuel injected engine. However, I'm thinking there must have been a good
reason for FI engines not being in the STCs. I'm betting it's the fact that
auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than 100LL. If one runs auto gas over
the top of a hot engine, would it not be more prone to vapor locking?
Could be. I'm not willing to spend the money on a FI engine only to find
out I can't use auto gas, after all. It would be most embarrasing to be
flying along and have the engine quit due to vapor lock. Hmmmm. What would
I tell my passenger, if I can find one brave enough to ride with me? :-)
> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect anyone
> willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds > of payload
> (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't really care
> about economy, like you and I.
> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with mogas
> will yield the best economy.
I hope Charlie is right. If enough of you guys are willing to take the risk
and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's working out. I may
have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for my current project.
Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go with a carby. I figure I
can suffer a little bit on fuel economy and still be smiling every time I
fill up my tanks with auto gas. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
(20 years of flying with auto gas)
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
I'm learning a lot here so keep up the fl;ow if info. My question is
why the angle valve engines would be different than the parallel valves?
CR???
Linn
do not archive
Charlie Kuss wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> At 06:59 AM 6/13/2006, you wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>>
>> snipped
>>
>> Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money on
>> his flying. He may also have a very clean airplane. Mine isn't; so,
>> I do have drag that make mine a little slower. I don't care because
>> I get to build more time in my airplane, that way. I kinda like
>> that. Mogas allows me to afford it. That's an option not available
>> to FI engines.
>>
>> Jim Sears in KY
>> EAA Tech Counselor
>
>
> Jim
> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you are
> referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct. However,
> any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to 1 or 8.5 to 1
> pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to 1 pistons (160 hp
> 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require using premium (91
> octane or better) Mogas.
> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect anyone
> willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds of payload
> (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't really care
> about economy, like you and I.
> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
> mogas will yield the best economy.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto gas in
> a fuel injected engine. However, I'm thinking there must have been a
> good reason for FI engines not being in the STCs. I'm betting it's the
> fact that auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than 100LL. If one runs
> auto gas over the top of a hot engine, would it not be more prone to
> vapor locking? Could be.
My understanding is that by the time the fuel gets
close to the hot engine it is under quite a bit of pressure,
greatly reducing the chances of it turning to vapor.
During flight, vapor lock has the highest chance
of happening at the fuel pump inlet, where the fuel
pressure is lowest.
On the ground, the heat soaked cowl can cause fuel to
turn to vapor, but most FI systems either have a vapor
return line or are full fuel return systems. This will
get fresh, cool fuel into the system under the cowl.
> I hope Charlie is right. If enough of you guys are willing to take the
> risk and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's working out.
> I may have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for my current project.
> Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go with a carby. I figure
> I can suffer a little bit on fuel economy and still be smiling every
> time I fill up my tanks with auto gas. :-)
If the fuel system is designed correctly, then the variables
are fuel volatility, fuel temperature and pressure (altitude).
You can buy a little fuel vapor lock testing kit that will
allow you to know the fuel's volatility before you take off.
http://www.decalinchemicals.com/fueltester.html
Keeping the fuel cool and under positive pressure are the
main tricks to avoiding vapor lock.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going. It goes
> like a Duracell rabbit
That is the Energizer bunny/rabbit (TM)
Ron Lee
Do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
I have read on this list and others many reports of success installing the
GPS antenna under the cowl; none that I recall reported problems. There was
some concern about using metallic paint on the cowl, but I don't think
anyone reported an actual problem.
As for the "400 degree world", that does seem a bit high. There are often
other electronics under the cowl too. My Lightspeed Ignition control box is
there. If you think it might get too hot, maybe pointing a blast tube at it
would help.
And as for them all being active, my understanding is that some are and some
are not. I don't know about that except that my Bluemountain EFIS
instructions say to make sure I use the right one with their system.
But then I design buildings, not antennas, so maybe I'm wrong.
Terry
RV-8A firewall forward
Seattle
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active and
contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from its
fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver. That
circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world. It is also
not going to like the corona traveling down each of the spark plug wires
making a high noise samba line.
>From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not locate
that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
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: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mitchell Faatz <mitch@skybound.com>
OR, take if from people who have been actually flying with this setup
for YEARS with absolutely no problems. I know many people personally
who have their GPS antenna on top of the engine compartment under the
cowl. The position offers an amazing unobstructed view of the sky. My
first reaction was the same as most: "doesn't that fry the antenna?".
Their reply: "hasn't in the last 6 years!".
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA GPS antenna under the cowl.
Michael Hudson wrote:
> GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active
> and contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from
> its fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver.
> That circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world.
> It is also not going to like the corona traveling down each of the
> spark plug wires making a high noise samba line.
>
> From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not
> locate that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
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: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
I'm not sure why anyone would want to mount the GPS antenna in the
engine compartment anyway. Ignition noise is definitely a factor. I
have that problem with my AnywhereMap in my Pitts and Traumahawk (I
know, I need to fix that!) ..... but using the remote antenna situated a
couple of feet aft seems to alleviate the problem. The GPS antennas
work quite well mounted on the glareshield with only the acrylic
windshield between the antenna and the satellite. That would be a
better answer to the fellah that mounted his to the cowling and was
looking for a bulkhead connector. There is one caution: Some antennas
(like the AnywhereMap remote antenna for the Sentinel GPS) have a magnet
that you might want to remove if it's located anywhere near the compass.
Linn
do not archive
Terry Watson wrote:
> I have read on this list and others many reports of success installing
> the GPS antenna under the cowl; none that I recall reported problems.
> There was some concern about using metallic paint on the cowl, but I
> don't think anyone reported an actual problem.
>
>
>
> As for the "400 degree world", that does seem a bit high. There are
> often other electronics under the cowl too. My Lightspeed Ignition
> control box is there. If you think it might get too hot, maybe
> pointing a blast tube at it would help.
>
>
>
> And as for them all being active, my understanding is that some are
> and some are not. I don't know about that except that my Bluemountain
> EFIS instructions say to make sure I use the right one with their system.
>
>
>
> But then I design buildings, not antennas, so maybe I'm wrong.
>
>
>
> Terry
>
> RV-8A firewall forward
>
> Seattle
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hudson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:46 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
>
>
>
> GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active
> and contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from
> its fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver.
> That circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world.
> It is also not going to like the corona traveling down each of the
> spark plug wires making a high noise samba line.
>
>>From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not
> locate that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
>
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: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
I agree with Sherman.
Carbs are very simple and less money to purchase and install. The
gas savings for the F.I. is there but with careful leaning and power
selection you can save money with a Carb. As far as LOP, some say
they can achieve it with a Carb, others with F.I., no matter how
hard they try have a hard time achieving smooth LOP operations.
It is really a matter of money, FI cost more and the idea you will
earn it back is may be the best reason, now with the higher gas
prices. Than there is the other items you have come across such
as no Carb ice and inverted flight capability. In the end FI has the
most potential to be temperamental. George
>From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a@yahoo.com>
>
>Is it self selecting? Perhaps people who want to experiment with
>FI chose FI. That is why I am planning on FI.
>
>After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting,
>and flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with
>fuel injection spend more time and money getting their planes to
>operate the way they want them to than the carbed pilots.
>
Do Not archive
__________________________________________________
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: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
My 430 antenna is also under the cowl with no problem. However, what
396 antenna are you referring to; the GPS or the XM weather
antenna/receiver? What may not be a problem for the GPS antenna could
possibly be for the XM antenna/receiver.
Rick McBride
----- Original Message -----
From: Mitchell Faatz<mailto:mitch@skybound.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
--> RV-List message posted by: Mitchell Faatz
<mitch@skybound.com<mailto:mitch@skybound.com>>
OR, take if from people who have been actually flying with this setup
for YEARS with absolutely no problems. I know many people personally
who have their GPS antenna on top of the engine compartment under the
cowl. The position offers an amazing unobstructed view of the sky.
My
first reaction was the same as most: "doesn't that fry the antenna?".
Their reply: "hasn't in the last 6 years!".
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA GPS antenna under the
cowl.
Michael Hudson wrote:
> GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active
> and contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from
> its fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver.
> That circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world.
> It is also not going to like the corona traveling down each of the
> spark plug wires making a high noise samba line.
>
> From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to
not
> locate that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV-List>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
=========================
==========
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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Linn
The 200 hp angle valve engines have a "hemi" style combustion
chamber and higher compression ratio. It's only 8.7 to 1, but
evidently the combination of the differing combustion chamber and
extra compression has an effect.
For the carbureted folk, Superior's updraft sumps have a streamlined
shape which splits the main air/fuel flow coming from the carb to the
individual intake runners. This helps give a smoother idle and it is
also an attempt to even out the air/fuel flow between the 4
cylinders. This may help the guys with carbs lean more aggressively.
With the "genuine" Lycoming sump/intake systems, there is a fair
amount of variation in the fuel distribution. This is because:
#1 The sump is a casting. Castings do not always allow the
manufacturer to maintain 100% dimensional accuracy from part to part.
This issue is also present in the intake and exhaust ports of the
cylinder head casting. Superior's Millenium II cylinders hold an
advantage here, as they use the investment cast process and machine
the combustion chamber and ports with CNC machines. This insures that
the ports and combustion chambers do not vary.
Folks like Lycon, offer "combustion chamber CCing" and port and
polish services to correct the cast in flaws of other cylinders.
#2 Open the throttle and look up through the carb into the sump. The
air/fuel path goes up and hits a flat wall. Without any streamlining
to steer the fuel/air mixture, turbulence is caused. Combine issues
#1 and #2 together, and you get variations in fuel/air flow from
engine to engine. This is one of the main reasons why some carbureted
engines can be leaned more than others.
Charlie
>--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
>I'm learning a lot here so keep up the fl;ow if info. My question
>is why the angle valve engines would be different than the parallel
>valves? CR???
>Linn
>do not archive
>Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>>
>>At 06:59 AM 6/13/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>>>
>>>snipped
>>>
>>>Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money
>>>on his flying. He may also have a very clean airplane. Mine
>>>isn't; so, I do have drag that make mine a little slower. I don't
>>>care because I get to build more time in my airplane, that way. I
>>>kinda like that. Mogas allows me to afford it. That's an option
>>>not available to FI engines.
>>>
>>>Jim Sears in KY
>>>EAA Tech Counselor
>>
>>
>>Jim
>> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you
>> are referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct.
>> However, any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to
>> 1 or 8.5 to 1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to 1
>> pistons (160 hp 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require
>> using premium (91 octane or better) Mogas.
>> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect
>> anyone willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds
>> of payload (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine)
>> don't really care about economy, like you and I.
>> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
>> mogas will yield the best economy.
>>Charlie Kuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.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: | OSH Parking Comments |
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
Just a few reminders for all of you going to OSH this year.
As someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in an orange vest at
OSH and many other fly-ins remember the flight ain't over until the plane is
tied down.
For the most part almost all airplane fatalities and injuries occur either
on, or very close to the ground. Oshkosh is no exception in spite of the
higher potential for mid air collisions.
While I don't work in the homebuilt section I do park a lot of aircraft
during that two weeks in July. It is true that you are the pilot and it's
your job to not run into anything, but it's my job to keep things from
running into you. So if you don't like what you see, or you can see that I
don't like what I see then it's time to shut it down and have a chat about
it all.
Fortunately airplanes aren't too hard to push and there's always a bunch of
volunteers that would love to help.
For many the trip in seems kinda fast and hairy, but then it's over and you
are on the ground. Well, this is when the stress really begins. OSH is big
and usually hot, we are moving up 11000 airplanes on and off the field.
Typically there are pre-established routes that aren't very obvious to those
sitting in a cockpit, but the idea is to keep everyone on any taxiway going
the same direction. As such you may toodle around a bit for no apparent
reason kinda like an IFR flight. We realize that you are hot, that you need
to get out and clean your shorts, that a quart of ice cold rum would be just
the thing, but please bear with us.
Have the signs as per the NOTAM, and print them out with a printer, bold,
landscape, 300pt Arial. Big letters with a ball point pen on a sectional
chart will get a nice laugh from many, but you will taxi around for a
while... I think it's the last page of the NOTAM has a great cheat sheet for
frequencies but once you are off the runway that will do nothing for you.
Depending on which runway you land on and where you are going you might see
up to 20 or so volunteers directing you over the course. The sooner each one
of them is able to recognize that three letter sign of yours, the sooner
they will get you on your way to the right location.
As well, there are defined areas for parking various types of airplanes.
Just because it's empty and it is show center doesn't mean you get to park
there. And if you know Paul or Tom Poberezny, that's fine, we'll still park
you where we want and then you can have them come help you move your plane
to where they want it. Speaking of that, while we are willing to relocate
aircraft, we usually try to do it during the lulls. This often doesn't work
out though because lulls come and go. Be patient, we'll do our best to get
you there.
Also, when departing, don't start your engine without an orange vested soul
nearby. As one who has seen airplanes collide into things at OSH it doesn't
matter whose fault it is, everyone is bummed and there are no winners. These
orange vested souls can be hard to find, particularly down in the homebuilt
area. If you are looking for something to do I suggest you volunteer and
wear a vest for a few tours. It will greatly expand your knowledge of the
ground operations there as well as get you a free glass of ice water and a
baloney and butter sandwich.
Make sure you get a briefing before you depart and keep the brief sheet or
you will be stopped and briefed when you get to the runway. This is very
disconcerting to have happen just before takeoff and I have seen many pilots
have to abort because they got rattled and forgot something like a canopy
latch. This of course means they get back in line and do it all over again.
And always remember, no matter how bad it gets, if they are wearing an
orange vest they aren't getting paid. Just like you, they are out there
trying to have a good time. They may not know everything so help them learn,
and help them help you.
W
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: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
Hi Jim,
I just checked EAA's web site. I note that they state:
"Please note that our STC's are only for engines that are certified
for the use of 80 octane fuel. Engines requiring 100 octane fuel must
still use 100 octane avgas."
I found the following link regarding Peterson Aviation's STCs for
auto fuels. They do show that some models (8.5 to 1 CR) require the
use of 91 octane auto fuel. As Jim stated, all these models are
carbureted. Jim is correct here.
The STC'd use of auto fuel in certified fuel injected aircraft may be
a vapor lock concern as Jim states. It may also simply be that the
STCs were not pursued due to poor return on investment. The
IO-320-Bxx series of engines were not used on many aircraft. (Twin
Comanches if memory serves me) Why waste the money to get the STC if
the number of fleet aircraft using the engine won't recoup your
investment and a reasonable return?
The following is just my opinion, but I think that the physics back
me up. Vapor lock occurs when the fuel boils in the
lines. Carbureted engine fuel pumps generate 1 to 5 psi. Bendix (aka
Precision) and Airflow Performance fuel injected units use 19 to 34
psi ( 25 psi is nominal on 4 cylinder models) fuel pumps.
Pressurizing a liquid will increase it's boiling point. Therefore,
from the electric boost pump to the fuel servo, you should have about
25 psi. The servo modifies (reduces) this pressure, but it stays well
above the 5 psi maximum of carbureted systems. Once running, the FI
system should be less likely to encounter vapor lock. Hot restarts
are another issue.
Jim may be correct that the issue is related to hot restarts on FI
systems. With no pressure at start up, and the small steel lines
going from the fuel distributor to the individual fuel injectors on
top of the engine, this is a prime area for the fuel to boil. It may
also boil at or near the mechanical pump. However, since we are in
the experimental category we are free to use/try this approach. If
your system, be it Bendix or Airflow Performance exhibits hot restart
problems, these can be solved with the addition of Airflow
Performance's fuel purge valve. This valve allows the pilot to
recirculate the heated fuel by means of the boost pump with the purge
valve open.
We are free to stick with the simple, cheaper carburetor
system, or use the fuel injection system of our choice, with or
without a purge valve. Jim wants to err on the side of caution. I
can't fault him for that.
Another option is to simply build a fuel injected engine which uses
the low compression 7.2 to 1 CR pistons. That means a 150 hp 320
cubic inch engine or a 168 hp 360 cubic inch engine. You may be able
to run with 87 octane fuel OR you may need to stick with the higher
octane 91/93 octane high test to avoid vapor lock. Some or all of
this lost power can be reclaimed by the use of electronic ignition
and tuned 4 into 1 exhaust systems.
I think that a low compression, parallel valve 360 cubic inch
engine utilizing fuel injection (with or without purge valve as
operational experience dictates), single electronic ignition, tuned 4
into 1 exhaust using 87 octane fuel would be the miser's
delight! :-) I "guesstimate" that such an engine would still produce
176 to 180 hp.
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>
>
>> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you >
>> are referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct.
>>However, any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to >
>>1 or 8.5 to 1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to >1
>>pistons (160 hp 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require >
>>using premium (91 octane or better) Mogas.
>
>If one sticks with the spirit of the STCs, I found no fuel injected
>engines listed as approved for auto gas. It could be that the fuel
>injection system is more prone to vapor locking. I don't know. I
>do know that I just looked at EAA's STC and found no engines
>starting with IO- in the list. (I've always assumed IO means fuel
>injected; so, correct me if I'm wrong. ) My list of engines from
>Petersen is pretty old; but, it shows none, either. That doesn't
>mean that the higher compression engines weren't shown, though. They
>just need more octane, as I've said before.
>
>If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto
>gas in a fuel injected engine. However, I'm thinking there must
>have been a good reason for FI engines not being in the STCs. I'm
>betting it's the fact that auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than
>100LL. If one runs auto gas over the top of a hot engine, would it
>not be more prone to vapor locking? Could be. I'm not willing to
>spend the money on a FI engine only to find out I can't use auto
>gas, after all. It would be most embarrasing to be flying along and
>have the engine quit due to vapor lock. Hmmmm. What would I tell
>my passenger, if I can find one brave enough to ride with me? :-)
>
>> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect
>> anyone willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds >
>> of payload (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine)
>> don't really care about economy, like you and I.
>> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
>> mogas will yield the best economy.
>
>I hope Charlie is right. If enough of you guys are willing to take
>the risk and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's
>working out. I may have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for
>my current project. Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go
>with a carby. I figure I can suffer a little bit on fuel economy
>and still be smiling every time I fill up my tanks with auto gas. :-)
>
>Jim Sears in KY
>EAA Tech Counselor
>(20 years of flying with auto gas)
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel Injection or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Sorry,
I forgot to include the link regarding Peterson Aviation's auto
fuel STCs in my earlier post. Here it is
http://www.webworksltd.com/autofuelstc/pa/ApprovedEngines.html
Charlie red faced Kuss
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr@hotmail.com>
I live in the Pacific NW. I'm going with fuel injection to get away from
carb ice, better engine performance and because I can. I just like it
better.
Jim Bowen
RV-8 QB
>From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:21:15 -0600
>
>
>>So a question for all you old hands out there Is fuel injection really
>>worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>>
>>Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of
>>why or why not?
>
>One benefit of Fuel Injection (FI) is the ability to run lean of peak.
>That should
>save fuel but I cannot show that it is worth the additional cost.
>
>A reported drawback of FI is hard starting under hot conditions (supposedly
>after landing then starting a short time later).
>
>You did go with 180 HP which is good. Whether it makes sense to go for
>more horsepower is another factor I cannot quantify. However, given that I
>could get more horsepower for the same cost of FI personally I would go
>for the horsepower.
>
>Ron Lee
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
> My understanding is that by the time the fuel gets
> close to the hot engine it is under quite a bit of pressure,
> greatly reducing the chances of it turning to vapor.
>
> During flight, vapor lock has the highest chance
> of happening at the fuel pump inlet, where the fuel
> pressure is lowest.
>
> On the ground, the heat soaked cowl can cause fuel to
> turn to vapor, but most FI systems either have a vapor
> return line or are full fuel return systems. This will
> get fresh, cool fuel into the system under the cowl.
>
This sounds really good to me and makes sense; but, I just looked at
Petersen's web site. No IO engines listed. I wonder why.
Jim in KY
do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OSH Parking Comments |
--> RV-List message posted by: gert <gert.v@sbcglobal.net>
I'd like to add some to this excellent list
as in the years before, the road to RV land and homebuild camping is a
one-way street. We have to stop all traffic coming out when a plane goes
in and vice versa. We have used the entry to the warbirds as a staging
area to wait for planes to come out. If we point u towards the warbird
area, please pull in the area and make a u turn (follow our signals),
chances are there will be more planes waiting. We will get u going as
soon as possible where u need to go.
There is a defined pecking order of who goes first, Ford trimotor heads
the parade, then warbirds, mostly P51s, finally all other, sorry that's
the way it is.
I second Wheeler's comment regarding signs, use the published signs and
colors. it is very frustrating dealing with pilots who 'know' where they
go because da's where they went for the past 20 years now. It is no fun
getting close to propellors, shouting over the blast to find out what
the pilot wants to do, only to get an earful because he/she is being
stopped at each intersection. I am told every year that they don't need
the notam...........
Also, if the parking area fills up, becomes full, please don't argue
with us that u want to park with the birds of a feather, we understand u
want to. We will bend over backwards to get u in. However, take the
space we point out to you, wander over to the area you want to park and
talk to the orange vests in that area. we have had to sent planes to
Fond Du Lac in the past, who argued and lost the last spot.
Please don't plan your departure till the last moment before the airshow
starts, any small hick-up in schedule will cause u to be shut down where
u are that very moment till after the airshow.
Fly save and have fun
Gert
Wheeler North wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
>
> Just a few reminders for all of you going to OSH this year.
>
> As someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in an orange vest at
> OSH and many other fly-ins remember the flight ain't over until the plane is
> tied down.
>
> For the most part almost all airplane fatalities and injuries occur either
> on, or very close to the ground. Oshkosh is no exception in spite of the
> higher potential for mid air collisions.
>
> While I don't work in the homebuilt section I do park a lot of aircraft
> during that two weeks in July. It is true that you are the pilot and it's
> your job to not run into anything, but it's my job to keep things from
> running into you. So if you don't like what you see, or you can see that I
> don't like what I see then it's time to shut it down and have a chat about
> it all.
>
> Fortunately airplanes aren't too hard to push and there's always a bunch of
> volunteers that would love to help.
>
> For many the trip in seems kinda fast and hairy, but then it's over and you
> are on the ground. Well, this is when the stress really begins. OSH is big
> and usually hot, we are moving up 11000 airplanes on and off the field.
> Typically there are pre-established routes that aren't very obvious to those
> sitting in a cockpit, but the idea is to keep everyone on any taxiway going
> the same direction. As such you may toodle around a bit for no apparent
> reason kinda like an IFR flight. We realize that you are hot, that you need
> to get out and clean your shorts, that a quart of ice cold rum would be just
> the thing, but please bear with us.
>
> Have the signs as per the NOTAM, and print them out with a printer, bold,
> landscape, 300pt Arial. Big letters with a ball point pen on a sectional
> chart will get a nice laugh from many, but you will taxi around for a
> while... I think it's the last page of the NOTAM has a great cheat sheet for
> frequencies but once you are off the runway that will do nothing for you.
> Depending on which runway you land on and where you are going you might see
> up to 20 or so volunteers directing you over the course. The sooner each one
> of them is able to recognize that three letter sign of yours, the sooner
> they will get you on your way to the right location.
>
> As well, there are defined areas for parking various types of airplanes.
> Just because it's empty and it is show center doesn't mean you get to park
> there. And if you know Paul or Tom Poberezny, that's fine, we'll still park
> you where we want and then you can have them come help you move your plane
> to where they want it. Speaking of that, while we are willing to relocate
> aircraft, we usually try to do it during the lulls. This often doesn't work
> out though because lulls come and go. Be patient, we'll do our best to get
> you there.
>
> Also, when departing, don't start your engine without an orange vested soul
> nearby. As one who has seen airplanes collide into things at OSH it doesn't
> matter whose fault it is, everyone is bummed and there are no winners. These
> orange vested souls can be hard to find, particularly down in the homebuilt
> area. If you are looking for something to do I suggest you volunteer and
> wear a vest for a few tours. It will greatly expand your knowledge of the
> ground operations there as well as get you a free glass of ice water and a
> baloney and butter sandwich.
>
> Make sure you get a briefing before you depart and keep the brief sheet or
> you will be stopped and briefed when you get to the runway. This is very
> disconcerting to have happen just before takeoff and I have seen many pilots
> have to abort because they got rattled and forgot something like a canopy
> latch. This of course means they get back in line and do it all over again.
>
> And always remember, no matter how bad it gets, if they are wearing an
> orange vest they aren't getting paid. Just like you, they are out there
> trying to have a good time. They may not know everything so help them learn,
> and help them help you.
>
> W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
Ron Lee wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
>> I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going. It
>> goes like a Duracell rabbit
>
>
> That is the Energizer bunny/rabbit (TM)
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Do not archive
>
I knew it was one of those rabbits..........
Do not archive
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
I have a carb and fly with a lot of different RV. The guys with Fuel
Injection always burn less fuel than I do. It ranges from 0.5 GPH to 2.0 GPH
less than I do to go the same speed. I have seen a 200 HP FI RV-7 fly on my
wing doing Formation Check Ride maneuvers (Steep pitch and bank lazy 8 type
maneuvers) and burn LESS fuel than I did flying lead with constant power
(2,100 RPM / 22 IN-Hg). We both full at the begining of the day and then
filled up at the end of the day only to see him buy 2 gallons less gas than
I did.
Yes the FI can sometimes be hard to start. There are more carb out there
and I have seen as many problems with carbs as I have FI. Most of the FI
problems that I have seen were because the owner / operator did NOT read the
instruction manual and did not have it set up correctly. One carb problem
went on for a year and end up being a bad float that had fuel in in it. One
fuel injection problem was from a BAD fuel pump being replaced with the
WRONG fuel pump.
The difference in the up front cost when compared to the cost of entire
airplane is small. Put in what YOU really want. I would like FI but do not
want to stop flying long enough to install it. I would like to re-engine to
a 180 and if / when I do, it will be FI.
As for Auto Fuel, I do not want to spend the time transporting it. In the
past 8.75 years of flying my RV, I have only been to ONE airport that had
auto fuel. There was a video clip a few years back where someone fueling
their RV with auto fuel had static electricity ignite the fuel and you could
see the flames on the wing. They put the fire out before the airplane was
damaged.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,869 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>>So a question for all you old hands out there Is fuel injection really
>>worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fiberglass tips for tip up |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
Hi to all
Hate to change the subject (IFR or NOT)...........but I need some advice on
the type of fiberglass / carbon cloth (Bi or Uni), and resin / hardner (
West Systems, Aero epoxy) types to start the fiberglass portion of the tip
up canopy build. Best vendors would also be appreciated. I have searched the
archives and google for info but need some more info to make the final
choice.
TIA
Frank @ SGU and SLC Canopy and looking for $$$$$$$$$$$$$ to finish the
project
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
Duracall (Jack-) Rabbits EAT these cute little pinky Energizer Bunny's
for breakfast.
But we all got the idea of what Phil was meaning to say in regards to
Fuel Injection.
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
Ron Lee wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going.
It goes like a Duracell rabbit
That is the Energizer bunny/rabbit (TM)
Ron Lee
Do not archive
I knew it was one of those rabbits..........
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
6/12/2006
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fiberglass tips for tip up |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I used West Systems. I'd do it again. Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fiberglass tips for tip up
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi to all
>
> Hate to change the subject (IFR or NOT)...........but I need some advice
> on the type of fiberglass / carbon cloth (Bi or Uni), and resin / hardner
> ( West Systems, Aero epoxy) types to start the fiberglass portion of the
> tip up canopy build. Best vendors would also be appreciated. I have
> searched the archives and google for info but need some more info to make
> the final choice.
>
> TIA
>
> Frank @ SGU and SLC Canopy and looking for $$$$$$$$$$$$$ to finish the
> project
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud@adelphia.net>
Anybody remember who makes the titanium tiedowns?
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
Message 36
| 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: Kitfox for partial trade |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RaNDY Frost" <jamesrfrost@hotmail.com>
Jeff: I have a Kitfox 3 and thought I had a deal to trade it with money for
a RV-4 but it fell thru. I'm still trying to get an RV. I have photos if
interested.
Randy 678-859-1861
>From: flamini2 <flamini2@comcast.net>
>To: "rv-list@matronics.com" <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-6 Chicago area for sale
>Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:15:20 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: flamini2 <flamini2@comcast.net>
>
>*RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net
><mailto:shempdowling2@earthlink.net?subject=Re:%20RV-6%20Chicago%20area%20for%20sale&replyto=01a801c65be4$d89fa4d0$b055d946@Shemp>>
>
>What airport?
>
>Jeff, It's at C56 the old Sanger Airport about 25nm South of MDW (Midway
>Chicago).
>The airport was sold to Bult Corp. and will be closed 7/1/06 for new runway
>and hangers
>and the land is also being fought over by the third Chicago Airport people.
>The registration is N405PP.
>The owner, Paul Pressler is the builder and a true metal craftsman, you
>should see his tools!
>Dennis
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dennis Flamini" <flamini2@comcast.net
><mailto:flamini2@comcast.net?subject=Re:%20RV-6%20Chicago%20area%20for%20sale&replyto=01a801c65be4$d89fa4d0$b055d946@Shemp>>
>To: <rv-list-digest@matronics.com
><mailto:rv-list-digest@matronics.com?subject=Re:%20RV-6%20Chicago%20area%20for%20sale&replyto=01a801c65be4$d89fa4d0$b055d946@Shemp>>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:03 PM
>Subject: RV-6 Chicago area for sale
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dennis Flamini" <flamini2@comcast.net
><mailto:flamini2@comcast.net?subject=Re:%20RV-6%20Chicago%20area%20for%20sale&replyto=01a801c65be4$d89fa4d0$b055d946@Shemp>>
> >
> > For sale RV-6 tilt-up in Chicago area;
> > Approx 300hrs TT
> > 150hp not H2AD major OH at 0hrs
> > Warnake wood prop
> > Com, Transponder, GPS, Gyros, Intercom
> > Perfect rivits, no bondo
> > $50,000 firm
> > You guys know the parts cost this much, you get 5 years labor for free!
> > Call Paul at 708-534-3042 after 6pm
> > see the photo section of;
> >
>http://home.comcast.net/~flamini2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--delay-5-SiteID-2735304.html
><http://home.comcast.net/%7Eflamini2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--delay-5-SiteID-2735304.html>
> >*
>
>
Message 37
| 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 |
|
They are made by Randy Simpson: www.airtimemfg.com
I have a set and they are something else. I may even buy another set or
two, as they make great gifts as well!
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Albert Gardner
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:22 PM
Subject: RV-List: Tiedowns?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud@adelphia.net>
Anybody remember who makes the titanium tiedowns?
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
--
6/12/2006
Message 38
| 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: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
At 07:22 PM 6/13/2006, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud@adelphia.net>
>
>Anybody remember who makes the titanium tiedowns?
>Albert Gardner
>Yuma, AZ
Something like Randy Simpson but I have read lots of negative posts
about non-delivery of product. Verify using the archive.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-7/7A emp & wing kit for sale |
This is forwarded from a fellow chapter member who is on iffy grounds with
FAA medical folk, which is reason he is selling and going SLA route. Locati
on
is just south of Nashville, TN.
Thanks!
Mark - do not archive
RV-7/7A parts for sale =93 I am offering for sale the empennage and wi
ngs of my
RV project. The empennage kit includes the electric trim kit. Nothing has
been started on either. Van's current price for the empennage is $1,485 plus
$260 for the electric trim and for the wing it is $5,800. I will sell mine
for
what the prices were when I bought them, which is $1370 for the empennage,
$240 for the electric trim, and $5250 for the wing. I also have most of the
instruments needed and would like to sell them as well. 615-595-4334 (H)
615-483-0306 (C) =93 Jim Hasper
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV Construction Tapes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Joe Radford" <rvjoe@cox.net>
If anyone is interested the following tapes are for sale on eBay:
RV Empennage Construction videos
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item75361
994&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT Item number: 8075361994
RV Wings Construction videos
http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=230661511&site=0&ver=LCA08080
5&item75366375&lk=URL Item number: 8075366375.
RV Fuselage Construction videos
http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=230661511&site=0&ver=LCA08080
5&item75368272&lk=URL Item number: 8075368272.
RV Finishing Kit videos
http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=230661511&site=0&ver=LCA08080
5&item75370651&lk=URL Item number: 8075370651.
Fiberglass / Composite Aircraft Construction video
http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=230661511&site=0&ver=LCA08080
5&item75378270&lk=URL Item number: 8075378270.
"Making Fiberglass Molds" with Mike Arnold video (featuring RV cargo pod)
http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=230661511&site=0&ver=LCA08080
5&item75381342&lk=URL Item number: 8075381342.
Do Not Archive
Message 41
| 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: | OSH Parking Comments |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
A suggestion for EAA/FAA regarding the departure procedures -
If a departure briefing is required, or nearly so, it needs to be state it
more clearly in the NOTAM. I was one of many who tried to leave without a
briefing sheet last year (my first as PIC), and was briefed at the hold
short line with the engine running. I chose not to get a briefing because I
already had a thorough understanding of the departure procedures in the
NOTAM, the wx was great, I had no questions, and it wasn't required.
Also, address the run-up. I've seen orange shirts waving off some poor,
conscientious guy trying to do a run-up somewhere, anywhere, on the way to
the departure area. Put the policies/guidelines/restrictions in the NOTAM.
My searches on this topic in NOTAM returned nothing.
Thanks for you volunteer efforts and keep up the great work.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wheeler North [mailto:wnorth@sdccd.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:16 PM
> To: 'rv-list@matronics.com'
> Subject: RV-List: OSH Parking Comments
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
>
> Just a few reminders for all of you going to OSH this year.
>
[snip]
>
> Make sure you get a briefing before you depart and keep the
> brief sheet or you will be stopped and briefed when you get
> to the runway. This is very disconcerting to have happen just
> before takeoff and I have seen many pilots have to abort
> because they got rattled and forgot something like a canopy
> latch. This of course means they get back in line and do it
> all over again.
>
> And always remember, no matter how bad it gets, if they are
> wearing an orange vest they aren't getting paid. Just like
> you, they are out there trying to have a good time. They may
> not know everything so help them learn, and help them help you.
>
> W
Message 42
| 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: Fuel Injected - or Not |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
RV6 Flyer wrote:
SNIP
> As for Auto Fuel, I do not want to spend the time transporting it. In
> the past 8.75 years of flying my RV, I have only been to ONE airport
> that had auto fuel. There was a video clip a few years back where
> someone fueling their RV with auto fuel had static electricity ignite
> the fuel and you could see the flames on the wing. They put the fire
> out before the airplane was damaged.
You can't blame that on auto fuel!!! If the yo-yo (I know, I don't know
him personally .... this isn't a personal atatack) had grounded his
equipment properly the fire caused by static wouldn't be a problem.
Blitz keeps touting that they've never documented a fire starting from
static using one of their red cans. I refuel from a 32 gal.
polypropylene barrel using a 12Vdc pump. I have a ground cable attached
to the pump (and 12V) ground that I clip on my exhaust pipes when
pumping my own mogas. I also use the clip to attach the ground to the
pump handle when I fill it at the gas station. And, before you ask, no,
it's not approved by the NY fire Dept, and yes, it's a violation of the law.
Linn ......... baring his soul for some unknown reason
do not archive ..... don't want the fuel police knocking on my door!!!
>
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,869 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
Message 43
| 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: LOP with carb |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Kelly,
We've got a 160 horse O-320 with Sensenich, carb and single Lightspeed
ignition in our 6a and have just the opposite results. Our EGTs run way
off when WOT. Pull a tenth of an inch MAP or maybe 2 tenths and they
fall right in line and then can be leaned to run LOP. We then get about
7-8 gph and around 150 - 155kt depending on altitude. Another trick I
use sometimes is to give it a little carb heat and then re-lean. It
seems to help bring the EGTs closer together. A bonus is that, when LOP,
the CHTs also run pretty equal and low.
All the same, I'll have fuel injection in my next plane. That and a
constant speed prop.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:15 AM
Subject: RV-List: RE: LOP with carb
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kelly Patterson" <kbob@cox.net>
I have to throw in my 2 cents on this one. My initial thought was to run
a
FI system, but the simplicity & budget of the carb won out.
The bonus was the economy is better than expected. The engine is an
O-320 w/
9.2:1 CR and a single Emag. The EGT's are only equal during WOT
operation,
otherwise they are 100 degrees off (some rich & some lean). I can get to
about 30 LOP before the engine runs rougher and is unhappy. Fuel burns
are
7.0-7.2 depending on altitude. This is at 155 kts in a 6A dragging
steps,
fixed pitch Sensenich and a nose gear around. So the answer to the
question
below is that carbs can run economically.
How does this compare to others - I don't know - but I'm happy with the
results. You make choices and move forward. I'll spend the thousands I
saved
on fuel and go places. Have fun everyone!
Kelly Patterson
PHX, AZ
RV-6A 64 hours
Message 44
| 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: | GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
Terry,
You might want to check with Klaus about that Lightspeed box, firewall
forward. I'm pretty sure he still recommends them aft. Ours, an early
Plasma I unit, requires air from a cooling fan and makes quite a bit of
its own heat. He recommended that we have him check it out because a
transformer tended to overheat on the early ones. He replaced ours (with
the type he's using nowadays) and returned our old transformer to us. It
was kinda blackened and didn't look too good. This was with just short
of 700 hours. We put in a bigger avionics fan and enlarged the air vent
to keep it cooler. YMMV
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
I have read on this list and others many reports of success installing
the GPS antenna under the cowl; none that I recall reported problems.
There was some concern about using metallic paint on the cowl, but I
don't think anyone reported an actual problem.
As for the "400 degree world", that does seem a bit high. There are
often other electronics under the cowl too. My Lightspeed Ignition
control box is there. If you think it might get too hot, maybe pointing
a blast tube at it would help.
And as for them all being active, my understanding is that some are and
some are not. I don't know about that except that my Bluemountain EFIS
instructions say to make sure I use the right one with their system.
But then I design buildings, not antennas, so maybe I'm wrong.
Terry
RV-8A firewall forward
Seattle
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active and
contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from its
fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver. That
circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world. It is
also not going to like the corona traveling down each of the spark plug
wires making a high noise samba line.
>From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not
locate that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
Message 45
| 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: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
If you're serious about having fuel injection for inverted flight, don't
forget the flop tube and inverted oil setup. The latter will cost you
some pounds and dollars and space on the firewall.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
I agree with Sherman.
Carbs are very simple and less money to purchase and install. The
gas savings for the F.I. is there but with careful leaning and power
selection you can save money with a Carb. As far as LOP, some say
they can achieve it with a Carb, others with F.I., no matter how
hard they try have a hard time achieving smooth LOP operations.
It is really a matter of money, FI cost more and the idea you will
earn it back is may be the best reason, now with the higher gas
prices. Than there is the other items you have come across such
as no Carb ice and inverted flight capability. In the end FI has the
most potential to be temperamental. George
>From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a@yahoo.com>
>
>Is it self selecting? Perhaps people who want to experiment with
Message 46
| 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: RE: LOP with carb |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
EGTs being "closer together" doesn't matter. It's the "GAMI spread" that
matters...the delta in fuel flow across all cylinders' EGT peaks. If you
have zero GAMI spread you're in good shape.
At WOT cruise, my EGTs run as much as 100F difference from hottest to
coldest but honestly I could care less. The GAMI spread is 0.1 gph or
better.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:23 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: LOP with carb
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Kelly,
>
> We've got a 160 horse O-320 with Sensenich, carb and single Lightspeed
> ignition in our 6a and have just the opposite results. Our EGTs run way
> off when WOT. Pull a tenth of an inch MAP or maybe 2 tenths and they
> fall right in line and then can be leaned to run LOP. We then get about
> 7-8 gph and around 150 - 155kt depending on altitude. Another trick I
> use sometimes is to give it a little carb heat and then re-lean. It
> seems to help bring the EGTs closer together. A bonus is that, when LOP,
> the CHTs also run pretty equal and low.
>
> All the same, I'll have fuel injection in my next plane. That and a
> constant speed prop.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Patterson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:15 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: RE: LOP with carb
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kelly Patterson" <kbob@cox.net>
>
> I have to throw in my 2 cents on this one. My initial thought was to run
> a
> FI system, but the simplicity & budget of the carb won out.
>
> The bonus was the economy is better than expected. The engine is an
> O-320 w/
> 9.2:1 CR and a single Emag. The EGT's are only equal during WOT
> operation,
> otherwise they are 100 degrees off (some rich & some lean). I can get to
> about 30 LOP before the engine runs rougher and is unhappy. Fuel burns
> are
> 7.0-7.2 depending on altitude. This is at 155 kts in a 6A dragging
> steps,
> fixed pitch Sensenich and a nose gear around. So the answer to the
> question
> below is that carbs can run economically.
>
> How does this compare to others - I don't know - but I'm happy with the
> results. You make choices and move forward. I'll spend the thousands I
> saved
> on fuel and go places. Have fun everyone!
>
> Kelly Patterson
> PHX, AZ
> RV-6A 64 hours
>
>
>
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! --
|