Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:12 AM - Looking for temp hangar DFW (Paul Besing)
2. 02:39 AM - Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines ()
3. 04:40 AM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Jim Sears)
4. 05:31 AM - Marhyde reformulation? (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
5. 07:07 AM - Re: Fw: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
6. 07:27 AM - Re: Drilling exhaust for EGT (DAVID REEL)
7. 07:39 AM - Re: Fw: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Mickey Coggins)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (glen matejcek)
9. 08:02 AM - MOGAS (Detonation) (james frierson)
10. 08:02 AM - Re: Fw: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Charlie Kuss)
11. 08:16 AM - Re: Fw: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
12. 09:30 AM - Re: Fw: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (LarryRobertHelming)
13. 10:33 AM - Re: Tools for Sale (RGray67968@aol.com)
14. 11:26 AM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Charlie Kuss)
15. 11:27 AM - Inspirational First Flight Video (James H Nelson)
16. 01:41 PM - Re: MOGAS (Detonation) (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
17. 01:41 PM - Re: Fw: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Larry Mac Donald)
18. 01:53 PM - Engine alignment (Dana Overall)
19. 02:32 PM - Re: MOGAS (Detonation) (Larry Pardue)
20. 02:44 PM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Bob)
21. 02:44 PM - Re: MOGAS (Detonation) (Olen Goodwin)
22. 02:44 PM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Bob J.)
23. 02:50 PM - Re: Engine alignment (LarryRobertHelming)
24. 03:43 PM - Re: Engine alignment (Dana Overall)
25. 05:12 PM - MOGAS Use (Ron Lee)
26. 05:51 PM - Re: Engine alignment (LarryRobertHelming)
27. 05:51 PM - Re: MOGAS (Detonation) (LarryRobertHelming)
28. 05:53 PM - MOGAS Use (James H Nelson)
29. 06:17 PM - Engine alignment (James H Nelson)
30. 06:55 PM - Re: How NOT to turn a fuselage over (Evan and Megan Johnson)
31. 08:04 PM - Re: MOGAS Use (Ron Lee)
32. 08:17 PM - Heat muff overheat? (Larry Bowen)
33. 08:21 PM - D10A magnetic sensor alignment (sarg314)
34. 08:30 PM - Re: MOGAS Use (Michael McGee)
35. 09:12 PM - Granby CO Fly-in breakfast (Ron Lee)
36. 09:12 PM - Re: Heat muff overheat? (Jim Jewell)
37. 09:32 PM - Re: Heat muff overheat? (Konrad L. Werner)
38. 09:39 PM - Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment (Dan Checkoway)
39. 10:32 PM - Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (DEAN PSIROPOULOS)
40. 10:39 PM - Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment (sarg314)
41. 11:15 PM - Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment (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: | Looking for temp hangar DFW |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
Heading to Dallas possibly Wed-Sat this week. Anyone
in the area have some hangar space to share for a few
days for an RV-4?
Please respond off list.
Thanks!
Paul Besing
do not archive
__________________________________________________
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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
ANY CAR GAS OR MO GAS HAS LOWER VAPOR
PRESSURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VAPOR LOCK.
JUST A NOTE: MO gas is what you can buy out of a pump
at the airport, MO gas for Motor Gas. Auto Fuel, is what you
get at the corner gas station. MO Gas is like 86 octane.
If you need 91 octane you need to get premium from the
corner gas station. The problem is your plane is at the
airport. (not much price difference from premium to 100LL)
So to use Auto fuel in your plane you are faced with the
hassle of hauling fuel to the plane. This can be a huge
hassle, dangerous and illegal. At most airports and with
state highway laws (hazardous material transport) a NO
NO. You are just not going to be hauling eight 5 Gal jerry
cans around or 55 gal barrels with gas easily. I can see
all the cheapskates thinking of the cost savings they
will get. In fact the saving is small if impractical for
91 octane engines. If you have a low compression engine
that can run on MO gas than sure there is some advantage.
HOWEVER A RV tight cowl is NOT ideal for MO gas
operations.
Also price of MO Gas is not that much less than 100LL or
can you even get MO gas widely. Some times MO gas cost
more than 100LL. So you might be taking abut $4.00/hr
savings for all the hassle.
Fuel Injection has nothing to do with it, it is compression
ratio. All the original STC's where for low compression
engines that where made for like 80 octane.
There are premium gas STC's for Lyc 320/360's with the
8.5:1 CR, which needs 91 octane, but not all planes can
pass the test and get a STC, even after much effort.
A 150HP O320 is a low octane engine, a O235 is NOT.
The INSTALLATION is critical. When a STC for auto
fuel is given it is for the installation as well as the engine.
YES I know we are experimental but you can't ignore
physics. I recall airplane like the older Mooney's
with the O360 can't get a STC for premium auto fuel
because of vapor lock. Like RV's the Mooney have
very tight cowls. Don't compare the Piper with a huge
cowl and a RV with a very tight cowl and exhaust pipes
snaking all around near fuel lines.
The overall issue is you will not get AUTO GAS with out
all the hamburger helper and modified fuel like alcohol
and ethanol. I remember in Washington state, in the
winter they went to an alcohol blend fuel. My gas
milage went in the crapper. That is the other issue.
Car gas is NOT CONSISTANT. It varies widely by
region, session and testing is a hassle.
If you do go auto fuel insulate and heat shield EVER
part of the fuel system and add a vapor return line
even for Carb engines.
>From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
>My RX-8 rotary (10 : 1 CR) powered RV-4 runs best and
>gets best fuel economy on 87 octane. I burn 100LL in a
>pinch but plug life is greatly reduced.
Automotive and aircraft engines are two differnt things. RX8
cars strictly call for premium and use 2 qts of oil between
oil changes, and also get terriable gas millage. I know you
are a rotary expert Tracy but a water cooled car engine
piston or rotary is not an aircooled aircraft engine.
My Lyc plug life is 1000 hour plus on 100LL.
I am not picking on you Tracy but you have to take
the good with the bad. Good, you can use auto fuel;
Bad, your engine is noisier, heavier and burns way
more fuel than a Lycoming for equivalent performance.
>Best experts I've read say that almost all aircraft engines
>would work fine on 91 octane mogas.
Most aircraft engines where certified for 91, like 320 (160HP)
and 360 (180 hp) Lycoming. So that is a no brainer, The
problem is the MO gas you can buy at the airport is way
less than 91 octane, like 80/86.
If you want premium AUTO fuel you have to haul. And the
idea of having your own tank, even on your own property
is likely to be illegal in most states.
We may get a 91UL or 95UL in the near future. Basically I
believe 100LL without the lead.
>equipped with knock sensors to adjust timing appropriately.
>This would be a simple and inexpensive thing to do if the
>FAA were not involved.
The FAA has nothing to do with it.
Aircraft engines can not use automotive knock sensor, which
are basically little microphones. An air cooled engine with out
water jackets can not use them due to mechanical noise.
When I say noise I DON'T mean what you hear, like thru the
exhaust pipe but mechanical valve noise.
Now combustion chamber pressure probes would work in
maximizing timing and improving economy of a Lyc, but
that is very expensive and not needed. Lyc's work at such
a narrow RPM/Power band you don't need fancy electronics
to make it work. You do need a trained pilot who knows
what the red knob is for.
Most (not all) aircraft engines will work with premium AUTO
FUEL or the new 91UL that MAY BE coming down the road.
I say may be because it might not happen. There are some
high end piston aircraft engines that will not work with less
than 100LL.
BTW Rotaries are of course the loudest engine you can
put on a plane. Of course there are no valves.
We are again talking water cooled verse aircooled. You
would think that would give a fuel edge to the rotary but
in fact the rotary burn more fuel than a Lyc.
You can talk all the ECU tweaking the basic design of
the rotary will never allow the same spacific fuel
consumption. The RX8 gets 5 mpg less than equivalent
220hp sport cars, BOTH City and Highway. Even the
Nissan Z car with almost 100 hp more gets the same
milage as the RX8 Mazda. (about 20% less fuel econ)
Do you think Mazda tuned their ECU for best EPA milage
for the gas milage sticker test? Sure.
So when talking about the advantage of burning auto
fuel, talk about the higher fuel burn and oil usage.
Also mixing oil into the fuel tank is a pain, or if you
use an oil injector instead, it's more weight.
>We will still be saddled with the expensive idiocy of a
>separate distribution system for our fuel due to the growing
>mandates to use ethanol which requires 1.3 gallons of fossil
>fuel to produce 1 gallon of the moonshine.
>Are we stupid or what?
Well we are not to be political, but where is the presidential
primaries held? (Iowa?) Where do they grow the most corn
and what is ethanol made of? (corn?)
That is the problem alternative fuel availability Auto GAs and
Mo gas, with out alcohol or ethanol is getting hard to get.
We can expect that 91UL aviation gas will come down the
road. IT already has in Europe. For now all we have 100LL.
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>> ANY CAR GAS OR MO GAS HAS LOWER VAPOR
PRESSURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VAPOR LOCK.<<
Actually, I think you'll discover that it's the other way around. Per a
note from Mr. Heathco, the vapor pressure in 100LL is very low. Winter
blend auto fuel has a fairly high vapor pressure, when compared to the other
blends. Winter blend is more apt to cause vapor locking when the temps rise
to more comfortable levels. I see the results when springlike weather
approaches before the fuel is converted to summer blend.
>> JUST A NOTE: MO gas is what you can buy out of a pump
at the airport, MO gas for Motor Gas. Auto Fuel, is what you
get at the corner gas station. MO Gas is like 86 octane. <<
Well, that's news to me. Most of us, if not almost all of us, consider auto
gas and mogas to be the same thing with different nicknames. I consider any
gas sold at an airport to be avgas, unless it's clearly mogas (auto gas).
>> If you need 91 octane you need to get premium from the
corner gas station. The problem is your plane is at the
airport. (not much price difference from premium to 100LL)<<
Well, we seem to have some of this statement correct. Yep, I consider 91
antiknock to be premium fuel. I do buy my auto gas from the local gas
station. However, I find that over a dollar a gallon savings to be
substantial when I use more than eight gallons per hour of it. Now, if I
were buying my auto fuel from the local airport, I know it would cost more
than what I can purchase at the local gas station; but, I've never paid as
much as 100LL for it, at any airport I've purchased it from.
>> So to use Auto fuel in your plane you are faced with the hassle of
>> hauling fuel to the plane. This can be a huge hassle, dangerous and
>> illegal. At most airports and with state highway laws (hazardous
>> material transport) a NO NO. You are just not going to be hauling eight 5
>> Gal jerry cans around or 55 gal barrels with gas easily. <<
Boy, I'd sure like to see that enforced! Just about every person who has to
mow his yard has gas cans to go get gas for the mower. Of course, one must
not forget that we ferry gas in every vehicle that uses it. All of my
vehicles use gas and carry it in their tanks. Does that mean I'm illegal?
I don't think so.
Granted, hauling gas for my airplane is a little bit of a hassle. I'm so
happy that I can use a cheaper fuel that I'm willing to put up with the
hassle. As for the danger, there is some; but, there's danger in driving to
the airport. With today's drivers, it's like running a gauntlet to get to
the airport. Compared to that, hauling gas in cans is nothing.
>> I can see all the cheapskates thinking of the cost savings they
will get. In fact the saving is small if impractical for 91 octane engines.
If you have a low compression engine that can run on MO gas than sure there
is some advantage. <<
Let's see. Premium gas is just under $3.00 per gallon, here. Avgas is
between $4 and $4.50, roughly, around here. That's upwards of half as much
more per gallon. I don't know about the rest of you guys; but, that's
pretty substantial to me.
As for being a cheapskate, I like to consider myself frugal. It's from
being frugal that many of us are able to afford the expenses of aviation, in
the first place. Many of us aren't rich and famous, like you must be; so,
any savings helps to keep us flying. If I had to pay for 100LL all the
time, I'd have to give up flying my own airplane.
Why is it that this guy sounds like a fixed base operator who hates it when
we don't buy avgas? He sounds a lot like some of the ones I've dealt with.
:-)
>>HOWEVER A RV tight cowl is NOT ideal for MO gas
operations.<<
The AA-5A Cheetah I owned had a tight cowl, as well as my RV-6A that I fly,
now. Both run just fine on mogas. Another thing. I always thought that a
tight cowl enhances air flow that keeps things cooler. Keeping things cool
is what makes using auto gas work better. Am I mistaken?
>> Also price of MO Gas is not that much less than 100LL or
can you even get MO gas widely. Some times MO gas cost
more than 100LL. So you might be taking abut $4.00/hr
savings for all the hassle.<<
In my little bitty airplane, I'm saving about $10+ per hour. Do the math.
I save over a dollar a gallon on the fuel. In fact, it's over $1.50, right
now. I use at least 8gph. When I'm on a trip, I use 100LL unless I can
find auto fuel that's pretty fresh at the airport.
Last year, for the very first time I've seen, there was a spike in auto gas
that pushed it up to the price of 100LL. The FBO still had some 100LL at a
lower price. The price of auto gas was within a penny of the 100LL. I
bought 100LL.
>> Fuel Injection has nothing to do with it, it is compression
ratio. All the original STC's where for low compression engines that where
made for like 80 octane.<<
Haven't you read any of the thread? Use of mogas has every bit to do with
fuel injection, fuel flows, compression ratios, etc.
>> There are premium gas STC's for Lyc 320/360's with the
8.5:1 CR, which needs 91 octane, but not all planes can
pass the test and get a STC, even after much effort.<<
With a proper fuel system, it can be done. We aren't restricted to the fuel
systems used on certified aircraft. We can use what works.
> A 150HP O320 is a low octane engine, a O235 is NOT.
Yes.
> The INSTALLATION is critical. When a STC for auto
> fuel is given it is for the installation as well as the engine.
Yes; but, we aren't required to have STCs for our experimentals; so, the STC
is really a moot point. The testing used to create the STC is not, though.
That testing has given us a jump start for setting up fuel systems that will
work for us.
>> YES I know we are experimental but you can't ignore
physics. I recall airplane like the older Mooney's with the O360 can't get a
STC for premium auto fuel because of vapor lock. Like RV's the Mooney have
very tight cowls. Don't compare the Piper with a huge cowl and a RV with a
very tight cowl and exhaust pipes
snaking all around near fuel lines.<<
If the airplanes in question had proper return systems, they may have passed
muster. I have a friend who is flying a wood wing Mooney and can't use auto
gas. He told me some of the later models can use it. All Mooneys have
tight cowls; so, why can some use it and other's not? Fuel system changes.
>> The overall issue is you will not get AUTO GAS with out
all the hamburger helper and modified fuel like alcohol and ethanol. I
remember in Washington state, in the winter they went to an alcohol blend
fuel. My gas milage went in the crapper. That is the other issue.
Car gas is NOT CoNSISTANT. It varies widely by region, session and testing
is a hassle.<<
That's right. Auto gas is not for all of us because some states, or cities,
require alcohol. However, many of us aren't in those states that are hell
bent on making us use alcohol enhanced fuels. If one is wary of the fuel, a
simple test can be done to catch the use of alcohol.
>> If you do go auto fuel insulate and heat shield EVER part of the fuel
>> system and add a vapor return line even for Carb engines.<<
Oh? I'm sure glad you told me. I've been flying on auto gas for 20 years
and don't have every part of my fuel system insulated. I do insulate the
lines with firesleeve and do put blast tubes to the pump. That's it. My
Cheetah didn't even have the blast tubes.
Now, I must admit that's it's good to have insulation, blast tubes, etc. to
make things work better; but, my experience has shown me that most of the
vapor locks I've encountered have been during fast turnarounds. I've always
been able to clear the vapor locks, easily. I don't have return lines.
However, each fuel system is different. Some do require them.
Folks, I don't want to cut down any contributor to the RV-list; but, Mr.
gmcjetpilot has gotten some bad information from somewhere. He reminds me
of the fixed base operators who used to try to get me off of auto gas. Hey,
they were losing my fuel business; so, I could see why they were interested
in my giving it up. My trying to get some of the other customers on auto
gas didn't set well with them, either. :-)
My suggestion to Mr. gmcjetpilot is that he continues to run his aircraft
engines on avgas or jet fuel, whichever is appropriate. I'll continue to
use auto gas in my airplanes and will try to win over every other aircraft
owner I can. The tiny bit of hassle I have to endure is well worth the
savings I've accumulated in the 20 years I've used it. I hope I can
convince many others to join me.
BTW, I wonder what Mr. gmcjetpilot will do when the FAA approves 82UL, or
some other auto gas fuel, to replace 100LL. Now, that may happen.
Goodness knows we've proved it works.
Jim Sears in KY
do not archive
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: | Marhyde reformulation? |
Howdy folks-
Have any of you other Marhyde #5111 (spray) or #5112 (quart) users out there
seen a change in this stuff's quality over the last year or so? A buddy
building a Mustang II has been using it and it does not seem to stick to
properly-prepped aluminum anywhere near as well as when I used it to build my plane.
You can scratch it off the surface with a thumbnail pretty easily. It was tough
stuff on my project and about the only way I could get it off was to sand it
off! See:
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=4863
I sent an inquiry to Bondo Corp's Tech assistance several weeks ago and the
respondent asked for batch #s which were forwarded. I haven't heard back yet.
He claimed there has been no change in formulation. If so, their QC has some
serious problems, but I really think they've changed it (even smells a little
different). Although my own experience with it was excellent, I need a
substitue immediately. Discussion over the years on the RV-list points to other
self-etch primers, namely SW GPB988, SEM 39683 and Dupont A-4115S, which I
believe is also the same as NAPA 7020. If you are presently using one of these
and
are satisfied they bond well to aluminum, please let me know!
I most respectfully ask that you PLEASE do not respond to this message with
your concerns & opinions about using self-etch primers (unless you have
specific FACTS about new EPA regulations or some other factor that has castrated
ALL
of these products!) If you want to do that, contact me OFF LIST and spare
thousands of listers the annoyance of wearing out their DEL key. I have been on
this list for many years and have heard it ALL about etch/alodine/epoxy/wash
primer/whatever and am looking for hard information regarding the current crop
of self-etch primers specifically. The last thing we have time for is an
argument over primers- it's already archived, again&again&again&again..........
Thanks!
Mark Phillips
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: | Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Seeing how we are off subject anyway, this is one of those things that
annoys the heck out of me. We dump tons of money and resources into
alternative fuels and technologies that are expensive, and really don't
cost any less in the long term, when there are real, proven, and viable
alternatives today. Many countries use diesels primarily because it is
less expensive and, when implemented correctly, can be just as clean as
gasoline with better gas mileage. You look at the Volkswagen TDI
engines and they get over 40MPG on the highway. You then add on top of
that biodiesel and you have a very clean, completely renewable, better
for the engines and the environment, fuel supply. We dump millions of
gallons of waste vegetable and other food oils a year that can be
converted into fuel with the only byproduct being glycerin which has
thousands of uses in industry. The corn growers could switch to
soybeans and we would have a food supply and fuel source that is just as
easy to convert as corn. Lobbyists are the root of all evil in
Washington and we really need our elected officials to stop looking out
for their interests and start looking after the interests of the
majority again.
I am seriously going to start looking into processing my own biodiesel
in the future for my dodge pickup and, if that goes well, my next car
will be a diesel TDI. Of course the side effect of having your exhaust
smell like french-fries and donuts should be interesting. :-)
Rant off
do not archive
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vanremog@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:33 PM
In a message dated 7/3/2006 4:47:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lhelming@sigecom.net writes:
Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that
authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil is in
short supply? Why waste .3 gallons of it?
=========================
======
Here's a good factual article not written by ADM.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336
.htm
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 799hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: Drilling exhaust for EGT |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Having drilled my O360 A1A's vetterman exhaust both ways, I consider a hole
that helps the wire line up with the lower spark plug leads the best
orientation. The ones I drilled to join the wire bundle that runs along the
crankcase/sump joint are more difficult to work with plus they run through
the hot area just under the cooling fins. Both methods are working OK but I
think bundling with the spark plug leads is a cleaner installation. In my
case, it also let me get all sensors closer to the same distance from the
exhaust port. At the same distance as all the other leads, the number 1
cylinder lead would have angled up to hit the cooling fins.
Also, if you make a mistake, grinding a stainless screw down and securing it
in the hole with a hose clamp is a decent alternative to junking that part
of the exhaust.
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I am seriously going to start looking into processing my own biodiesel
> in the future for my dodge pickup and, if that goes well, my next car
> will be a diesel TDI. Of course the side effect of having your exhaust
> smell like french-fries and donuts should be interesting. :-)
You'd better plan to open a few restaurants or get in tight with
someone that has some restaurants...people are catching on to
this idea. I have a bud that is in the hamburger business,
and he thought he'd have an endless supply of cheap fuel,
but as much oil as they use, he uses a lot more in his SUV!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi All-
It's been a bunch of years since I followed this aspect of the industry, so
please pardon my ignorance. I'd like some clarification from those of you
(Charlie?) who've done the research on this issue. The Lyc manual for my
8.7:1 IO-360-A1B6D specifies 100/130 fuel. It also refers to S.I. 1070,
which says the engine was certificated for 100/130 but that 100LL or 100
are the commercial designations to be used. The SI further states "The
chart showing specified and alternate fuels that can be safely used in no
instance permits use of fuels of lower grade than that which is specified.
Also, it is not permissible in any instance to use automotive fuel in
aircraft engines, regardless of octane or advertised features because of
the corrosive effect of its chlorine content and because of vapor lock that
could result due to its high vapor pressure. Any fuel used in Lycoming
engines must conform with Specifications ASTM-D910 or MIL-G-5572F."
Last things first- if one were to test / verify the vapor pressure of the
locally available mogas, and only use fuel with a Ried vapor pressure less
than 7, wouldn't that essentially preclude vapor lock problems?
Does the chlorine mentioned only corrode / swell fuel system seals, or are
there other effects?
If one tank held avgas for non-cruise ops, and the other held mogas for sub
75% cruise ops, wouldn't knock be a non-issue? Or would some sort of knock
sensor still be appropriate?
Is there any news on the status of the efforts to keep 91 octane alcohol
free?
Thanks in advance, guys!
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | MOGAS (Detonation) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "james frierson" <tn3639@hotmail.com>
This MOGAS thread is has some great information. It looks like the greatest
threat is vapor lock which can be dealt with but what about Detonation? With
a 160hp O-320 my biggest concern was Detonation. But as long as I use 91-93
octane MOGAS, that does not seem to be the case. Is that a fair conclusion?
Scott
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
At 02:25 AM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>Larry Pardue wrote:
>>On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:44 PM, LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>>> Would someone please point us to a reputable reference
>>> that authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce
>>> ethanol energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil
>>> is in short supply? Why waste .3 gallons of it?
>>This is a matter of a lot of disagreement. I firmly believe the
>>best way to find out is to remove the subsidies. The free market
>>has an amazing ability to sort these things out.
>>Larry Pardue
>
>I agree completely.
>
>Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen. You've got two giant
>industries battling for more and more of our taxes, and a bunch
>of politicians that are doing all they can to milk these
>two industries down for campaign contributions.
>
>There are also negative side effects of ethanol production,
>since it competes with the production of food. I personally
>think we should tread carefully when doing anything to
>risk food production, but then again, I like to eat more
>than I like to drive.
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
Larry & Mickey,
Recently, the process has been improved. Instead of using the
actual corn (which would drive up the price of corn as food) a
process has been developed which uses the leaves and stalk, which are
otherwise wasted. This drastically reduces the price to produce
ethanol.This would allow the farmer to extract more cash from their
current corn crop with no increase in price to the food crop.
The REAL issue however, is that currently, Brazil can sell ethanol
much cheaper than it is done here in the US. They have been making
ethanol from the leaves and stalk for several years. However, there
is a $0.50 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Like Larry said,
subsidies in the form of tariffs are at work here.
To paraphrase Lincoln: Of the corporations, by the corporations,
for the corporations! :-(
Charlie Kuss
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Actually that is what has kept me from getting into it at the moment,
well that and building an airplane. A RAM 3500 sucks a lot of gas, even
though it is still less than a lot of SUV's, and where I live in Texas
people actually pay the restaurants to take it instead of the other way
around. I have a friend back in WI that really wants to do this so I
told him when I move back if he collects oil from places I would convert
it. Make him do the hard work!
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:37 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I am seriously going to start looking into processing my own
> biodiesel in the future for my dodge pickup and, if that goes well, my
> next car will be a diesel TDI. Of course the side effect of having
> your exhaust smell like french-fries and donuts should be interesting.
> :-)
You'd better plan to open a few restaurants or get in tight with someone
that has some restaurants...people are catching on to this idea. I have
a bud that is in the hamburger business, and he thought he'd have an
endless supply of cheap fuel, but as much oil as they use, he uses a lot
more in his SUV!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Thank you. Below is the copied text from the source below that hits the
main question head on. Indiana Larry do not archive
"Doesn't producing ethanol on a large scale use a great deal of energy?
Yes. Some ethanol skeptics have even argued that the process involved in
growing grain and then transforming it into ethanol requires more energy
from fossil fuels than ethanol generates. In other words, they say the
whole movement is a farce.
There's no absolute consensus in the scientific community, but that
argument is losing strength. Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy
Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research,
says "The energy used for each unit of ethanol produced has been reduced
by about half [since 1980]." Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million
British thermal units (BTUs) of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil
fuels. (That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining --
used in growing corn.) By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1
million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels."
----- Original Message -----
From: Vanremog@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines
In a message dated 7/3/2006 4:47:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lhelming@sigecom.net writes:
Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that
authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil is in
short supply? Why waste .3 gallons of it?
=========================
======
Here's a good factual article not written by ADM.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.
htm
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 799hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: Tools for Sale |
The Tools have been S-O-L-D.....You Snooze....You Looze :^). Thanks to all
those who responded!!
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
do not archive
Unless it says 'Spruce' the prices were compared with Avery. All tools are
'used' but in excellent condition.
Tools for Sale
1-Avery =98C=99 Frame =93$165
2=93US Rivet gun #TP82 Spruce price $252
3=93US Rivet gun #TP83 Spruce price $205
4=93Back rivet set $22
5=937 misc rivet sets for pneumatic gun $6 to $9 ea (approx $40)
6=93Mushroom Swivel Set - $39
7=93Flush Set with Guard $18
8=936 misc Mushroom Flush Sets $7 to $14 ea (approx $40)
9=93Rivet length gauge $7
10=93Shop Head Gauge set of 4 $7
11=93Edge Rolling tool (I have 2) Spruce price $15ea = $30 total
12-3 size Tubing Bender Spruce price $31
13=932 pair of Fluting Pliers Spruce price $16.50ea = $33 total
14=93Die Grinder =93 Spruce Price $42
15=93Snips =93 Left hand Spruce Price $17.50
16-Snips =93 Right hand Spruce Price $17.50
17-Snips =93 Straight Cut Spruce Price $17.50 (2ea) = $35 total
18=93Cleco Pliers - $4.95
19=933 Drill Stops various sizes $.95 ea = $2.85 total
20=93Clecos =93 3/32 Silver (300ea) $.38ea = $114 total
21=93Clecos =93 1/8 Copper (100ea) $.38ea = $38 total
22=93Clecos =93 5/32 Black (14ea) $.38ea = $5.32 total
23=93Clecos =93 3/16 Brass (55ea) $.38ea = $20.90 total
24=9324 Wing Nut Clecos 1/4" $3ea = $72 total
25=9318 Side Grip Cleco type clamps (long style) $2.50ea =$45 total
26=93Rivet Cutter Spruce price $12.95
27-Instrument Cutout Template Spruce price =93 $9.95
28-Bolt Gauge - Free
29-Drill Gauge =93 Free
30-High Speed Debur Tool w/extension =93 Spruce price $22.95
31-2 Plate Nut jigs 3/32 & 1/18 =93 $5ea (not sure of price) = $10
total
32-Safety Wire Twister Pliers - Spruce price $22.95
33-NEW in box 2ea ISSPRO R8790 2=9D Fuel Gauges (unknown price so $50
for the
pair)
34-NEW in box Mitchell Volt Meter 2=9D Spruce price $43.95
35- Micromesh plexi kit (box opened and may have been used???) Spruce price
$17.95 make offer
Total comes to about $1,488.87 for =98new=99 stuff. I=99m
not 100% positive on
all the above prices and I=99d like to sell everything together if po
ssible. That
said..I'll take $850 for EVERYTHING on the list..I
=99ll box it up and you
pay the shipping. Obviously you may not need/want everything but I figure y
ou
can always pass on to someone else what you don't want/need and make out OK
with the price I'm offering.
If you're interested give me a buzz and we'll work it out....these tools ar
e
just taking up space in my garage :^). If you aren=99t happy when you
get the
stuff then send EVERYTHING back at your cost and I=99ll refund you in
full.
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - _rgray67968@aol.com_
(mailto:rgray67968@aol.com) or H740.678.8031
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: RE: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
At 10:52 AM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
>Hi All-
>
>It's been a bunch of years since I followed this aspect of the industry, so
>please pardon my ignorance. I'd like some clarification from those of you
>(Charlie?) who've done the research on this issue. The Lyc manual for my
>8.7:1 IO-360-A1B6D specifies 100/130 fuel. It also refers to S.I. 1070,
>which says the engine was certificated for 100/130 but that 100LL or 100
>are the commercial designations to be used. The SI further states "The
>chart showing specified and alternate fuels that can be safely used in no
>instance permits use of fuels of lower grade than that which is specified.
>Also, it is not permissible in any instance to use automotive fuel in
>aircraft engines, regardless of octane or advertised features because of
>the corrosive effect of its chlorine content and because of vapor lock that
>could result due to its high vapor pressure. Any fuel used in Lycoming
>engines must conform with Specifications ASTM-D910 or MIL-G-5572F."
>
>Last things first- if one were to test / verify the vapor pressure of the
>locally available mogas, and only use fuel with a Ried vapor pressure less
>than 7, wouldn't that essentially preclude vapor lock problems?
>
>Does the chlorine mentioned only corrode / swell fuel system seals, or are
>there other effects?
>
>If one tank held avgas for non-cruise ops, and the other held mogas for sub
>75% cruise ops, wouldn't knock be a non-issue? Or would some sort of knock
>sensor still be appropriate?
>
>Is there any news on the status of the efforts to keep 91 octane alcohol
>free?
>
>Thanks in advance, guys!
>
>glen matejcek
>aerobubba@earthlink.net
Glen,
No one related to obtaining STCs for use of auto fuel in aircraft
recommends it's use in engines with greater than 8.5 to 1 compression
ratios. Even though the Lycoming angle valve engines are only 0.2
points higher, they have a totally different combustion chamber
design. That said, I do know of RV owners using auto fuel in these
engines with no modification. I would expect that their detonation
margins are reduced to less than what Lycoming would like. Another
option would be to operate on a mixture of 100LL and premium auto
fuel. On refueling away from home base, this will occur anyway.
Testing the Reid Vapor Pressure of all auto fuel you use, (as well
as testing for alcohol) would be extremely wise. Modification of your
fuel system to include a Continental style vapor return system would
also be wise with this engine. As mentioned by another lister, knock
sensors are not practical for air cooled engines.
The addition of ethanol to auto fuel is a regional issue at
present. The issue of chemicals used in auto fuels that are not used
in aviation fuels has been dealt with in recent years. Re-read my
last post regarding this.
Charlie Kuss
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: | Inspirational First Flight Video |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Jack,
Man what a fantastic first flight and video. Yes, it was Yani
for the background but well let that go. I'm still doing FWF but I can
see the end even if its down the road a bit. This video just makes it
all worth while an keeps me pounding rivets.
Jim Nelson
RV9-A
http://websites.expercraft.com/jimn
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: MOGAS (Detonation) |
--> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 7/4/06 3:36:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tn3639@hotmail.com writes:
> This MOGAS thread is has some great information. It looks like the greatest
> threat is vapor lock which can be dealt with but what about Detonation?
With
>
> a 160hp O-320 my biggest concern was Detonation. But as long as I use
91-93
> octane MOGAS, that does not seem to be the case. Is that a fair conclusion?
>
> Scott
=============================
Scott:
Under the right conditions I can create Vapor Lock even with AvGas. The right
conditions seem to exist more in Texas than anywhere else. The only reason
why I say that is I have had more opponents of MoGas from their than anywhere
else. I have even had ALL the symptoms of vapor lock in a Piper Arrow with fuel
injection. I support MoGas and have seen better engine runs with MoGas than
AvGas. BUT! There will always be those in favor and those apposed.
With the addition of ethanol to our MoGas that should stop vapor lock, since
the vapor point and flash point are higher.
As for the O-320 with high compression pistons, YES stick with the 93 or
better octane. Ya know ... I have never seen 91 octane offered anywhere.
As for detonation, you can feel free to mix 100 LL AvGas with 93 MoGas ...
BUT! Never mix 93 MoGas with anything less than 93 or better.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com>
You might want to be carful about jumping off to another
kind of fuel so hastily. Because of recent research it's
been found out that this oil shortage was just a matter of
us forgetting to measure the oil we had. The research
showed that our oil is in Alaska, California, Texas,
Oklahoma and Wyoming and all the while our
dipsticks are in Washington D.C.
Larry Mac Donald
Do not achcive
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:37:26 +0200 Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
writes:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> > I am seriously going to start looking into processing my own
> biodiesel
> > in the future for my dodge pickup and, if that goes well, my next
> car
> > will be a diesel TDI. Of course the side effect of having your
> exhaust
> > smell like french-fries and donuts should be interesting. :-)
>
> You'd better plan to open a few restaurants or get in tight with
> someone that has some restaurants...people are catching on to
> this idea. I have a bud that is in the hamburger business,
> and he thought he'd have an endless supply of cheap fuel,
> but as much oil as they use, he uses a lot more in his SUV!
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> 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: | Engine alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
Started working on the cowling this morning and ran into a little question
mark.
On my case, there is a little ridge where the bottom two engine mounts
contact the case. I put a large washer between the Barry mount and the case
on the bottom, otherwise the engine mounts would not be flush on the case.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment1.jpg
I did not put any washers on the top. My thinking was Lyc had taken this
into consideration with the ridge in the bottom two.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment2.jpg
So, when I placed the upper cowling in place, there is an increasing gap
from top to bottom. Me thinks this does not look right!!
http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment3.jpg
Anyone run into this? What are my options, put a large washer between the
top to mounts and the case?
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
O 360 A1A, C/S C2YK-1BF/F7666A4
http://rvflying.tripod.com/id30.html
do not archive
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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: MOGAS (Detonation) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:36 PM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> As for the O-320 with high compression pistons, YES stick with the
> 93 or
> better octane. Ya know ... I have never seen 91 octane offered
> anywhere.
>
This is a regional thing. 91 octane is the highest we have in my
town at 3,200 feet. I think the altitude is the reason.
do not archive
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Wow!!!
Are you some sort of lobbist for the 100LL fuel industry. You have
convinced me, I won't even use mogas in my tractor after this warning.
100LL for everything!!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:32 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines
ANY CAR GAS OR MO GAS HAS LOWER VAPOR
PRESSURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VAPOR LOCK.
JUST A NOTE: MO gas is what you can buy out of a pump
at the airport, MO gas for Motor Gas. Auto Fuel, is what you
get at the corner gas station. MO Gas is like 86 octane.
If you need 91 octane you need to get premium from the
corner gas station. The problem is your plane is at the
airport. (not much price difference from premium to 100LL)
So to use Auto fuel in your plane you are faced with the
hassle of hauling fuel to the plane. This can be a huge
hassle, dangerous and illegal. At most airports and with
state highway laws (hazardous material transport) a NO
NO. You are just not going to be hauling eight 5 Gal jerry
cans around or 55 gal barrels with gas easily. I can see
all the cheapskates thinking of the cost savings they
will get. In fact the saving is small if impractical for
91 octane engines. If you have a low compression engine
that can run on MO gas than sure there is some advantage.
HOWEVER A RV tight cowl is NOT ideal for MO gas
operations.
Also price of MO Gas is not that much less than 100LL or
can you even get MO gas widely. Some times MO gas cost
more than 100LL. So you might be taking abut $4.00/hr
savings for all the hassle.
Fuel Injection has nothing to do with it, it is compression
ratio. All the original STC's where for low compression
engines that where made for like 80 octane.
There are premium gas STC's for Lyc 320/360's with the
8.5:1 CR, which needs 91 octane, but not all planes can
pass the test and get a STC, even after much effort.
A 150HP O320 is a low octane engine, a O235 is NOT.
The INSTALLATION is critical. When a STC for auto
fuel is given it is for the installation as well as the engine.
YES I know we are experimental but you can't ignore
physics. I recall airplane like the older Mooney's
with the O360 can't get a STC for premium auto fuel
because of vapor lock. Like RV's the Mooney have
very tight cowls. Don't compare the Piper with a huge
cowl and a RV with a very tight cowl and exhaust pipes
snaking all around near fuel lines.
The overall issue is you will not get AUTO GAS with out
all the hamburger helper and modified fuel like alcohol
and ethanol. I remember in Washington state, in the
winter they went to an alcohol blend fuel. My gas
milage went in the crapper. That is the other issue.
Car gas is NOT CONSISTANT. It varies widely by
region, session and testing is a hassle.
If you do go auto fuel insulate and heat shield EVER
part of the fuel system and add a vapor return line
even for Carb engines.
>From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
>My RX-8 rotary (10 : 1 CR) powered RV-4 runs best and
>gets best fuel economy on 87 octane. I burn 100LL in a
>pinch but plug life is greatly reduced.
Automotive and aircraft engines are two differnt things. RX8
cars strictly call for premium and use 2 qts of oil between
oil changes, and also get terriable gas millage. I know you
are a rotary expert Tracy but a water cooled car engine
piston or rotary is not an aircooled aircraft engine.
My Lyc plug life is 1000 hour plus on 100LL.
I am not picking on you Tracy but you have to take
the good with the bad. Good, you can use auto fuel;
Bad, your engine is noisier, heavier and burns way
more fuel than a Lycoming for equivalent performance.
>Best experts I've read say that almost all aircraft engines
>would work fine on 91 octane mogas.
Most aircraft engines where certified for 91, like 320 (160HP)
and 360 (180 hp) Lycoming. So that is a no brainer, The
problem is the MO gas you can buy at the airport is way
less than 91 octane, like 80/86.
If you want premium AUTO fuel you have to haul. And the
idea of having your own tank, even on your own property
is likely to be illegal in most states.
We may get a 91UL or 95UL in the near future. Basically I
believe 100LL without the lead.
>equipped with knock sensors to adjust timing appropriately.
>This would be a simple and inexpensive thing to do if the
>FAA were not involved.
The FAA has nothing to do with it.
Aircraft engines can not use automotive knock sensor, which
are basically little microphones. An air cooled engine with out
water jackets can not use them due to mechanical noise.
When I say noise I DON'T mean what you hear, like thru the
exhaust pipe but mechanical valve noise.
Now combustion chamber pressure probes would work in
maximizing timing and improving economy of a Lyc, but
that is very expensive and not needed. Lyc's work at such
a narrow RPM/Power band you don't need fancy electronics
to make it work. You do need a trained pilot who knows
what the red knob is for.
Most (not all) aircraft engines will work with premium AUTO
FUEL or the new 91UL that MAY BE coming down the road.
I say may be because it might not happen. There are some
high end piston aircraft engines that will not work with less
than 100LL.
BTW Rotaries are of course the loudest engine you can
put on a plane. Of course there are no valves.
We are again talking water cooled verse aircooled. You
would think that would give a fuel edge to the rotary but
in fact the rotary burn more fuel than a Lyc.
You can talk all the ECU tweaking the basic design of
the rotary will never allow the same spacific fuel
consumption. The RX8 gets 5 mpg less than equivalent
220hp sport cars, BOTH City and Highway. Even the
Nissan Z car with almost 100 hp more gets the same
milage as the RX8 Mazda. (about 20% less fuel econ)
Do you think Mazda tuned their ECU for best EPA milage
for the gas milage sticker test? Sure.
So when talking about the advantage of burning auto
fuel, talk about the higher fuel burn and oil usage.
Also mixing oil into the fuel tank is a pain, or if you
use an oil injector instead, it's more weight.
>We will still be saddled with the expensive idiocy of a
>separate distribution system for our fuel due to the growing
>mandates to use ethanol which requires 1.3 gallons of fossil
>fuel to produce 1 gallon of the moonshine.
>Are we stupid or what?
Well we are not to be political, but where is the presidential
primaries held? (Iowa?) Where do they grow the most corn
and what is ethanol made of? (corn?)
That is the problem alternative fuel availability Auto GAs and
Mo gas, with out alcohol or ethanol is getting hard to get.
We can expect that 91UL aviation gas will come down the
road. IT already has in Europe. For now all we have 100LL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS (Detonation) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
At higher altitudes the octane level needed decreases. The engine operates
at a lower MP and has less cylinder pressure...it's like operating at part
throttle even on takeoff. We have 85 octane regular and 89 octane premium
in CO. Unfortunately they don't reduce the price.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 3:30 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:36 PM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As for the O-320 with high compression pistons, YES stick with the 93 or
>> better octane. Ya know ... I have never seen 91 octane offered
>> anywhere.
>>
>
> This is a regional thing. 91 octane is the highest we have in my town at
> 3,200 feet. I think the altitude is the reason.
>
> do not archive
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://n5lp.net
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: RE: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Guys I have been running over four years and 500+ hours on a mix of 25%
100LL, 75% 87 octane no-alcohol unleaded which I purchase from the local
farm bureau. Never had any trouble, other than the stains it makes on the
paint. No signs of detonation or elevated temperatures. Typically as a
flatlander I rarely go above 7500ft and have flown many times where the OAT
was 95 deg. F. At the moment my fuel costs are $31.98/hr, and if I go 100%
100LL its $40.00/hr, for a savings of $8.02/hour. (based on 10gph, 87 octane
at $2.93/gal and 100LL at $4.00/gal.). I typically fly 10 hours a month,
for a net savings of $80.20 a month, $962.40/year. It's worth the hassle!
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 O-360 C/S flying 700+ hours, F1 under const.
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: Engine alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Dana, you want to space it evenly at the front. You do whatever you need to
do to the back to achieve the perfect front. You probably sand/cut stuff
off back there and if you take too much off, you get to add it back later.
You want about 3/8" to 1/4" gap that pic 3 shows to be uniform all around.
Put a spacer in there and clamp it down or it will move when you go to
drilling the cowling to the firewall. You want the cowling to be a bit low
from being perfect to the spinner position so when the engine drops/sags a
bit after a few hours of use, you will be closer to perfect. Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>
>
> Started working on the cowling this morning and ran into a little question
> mark.
>
> On my case, there is a little ridge where the bottom two engine mounts
> contact the case. I put a large washer between the Barry mount and the
> case on the bottom, otherwise the engine mounts would not be flush on the
> case.
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment1.jpg
>
> I did not put any washers on the top. My thinking was Lyc had taken this
> into consideration with the ridge in the bottom two.
>
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment2.jpg
>
> So, when I placed the upper cowling in place, there is an increasing gap
> from top to bottom. Me thinks this does not look right!!
>
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment3.jpg
>
>
> Anyone run into this? What are my options, put a large washer between the
> top to mounts and the case?
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: | Re: Engine alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
Larry and any other listers, what my problem appears to be is a misalignment
of the engine, ie., tilted up with the introduction of the washer between
the engine mount and case on the bottom to clear the lip on the case bottom
attach points. If you notice on the third picture, the gap gets
progressively larger on the bottom of the upper cowl. My thinking is the
washers have canted the engine up, thereby giving me this non standard gap.
Any thoughts?
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
O 360 A1A, C/S C2YK-1BF/F7666A4
http://rvflying.tripod.com/id30.html
do not archive
>From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Engine alignment
>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 16:49:09 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>Dana, you want to space it evenly at the front. You do whatever you need
>to do to the back to achieve the perfect front. You probably sand/cut
>stuff off back there and if you take too much off, you get to add it back
>later. You want about 3/8" to 1/4" gap that pic 3 shows to be uniform all
>around. Put a spacer in there and clamp it down or it will move when you go
>to drilling the cowling to the firewall. You want the cowling to be a bit
>low from being perfect to the spinner position so when the engine
>drops/sags a bit after a few hours of use, you will be closer to perfect.
>Indiana Larry
>----- Original Message -----
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>>
>>
>>Started working on the cowling this morning and ran into a little question
>>mark.
>>
>>On my case, there is a little ridge where the bottom two engine mounts
>>contact the case. I put a large washer between the Barry mount and the
>>case on the bottom, otherwise the engine mounts would not be flush on the
>>case.
>>http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment1.jpg
>>
>>I did not put any washers on the top. My thinking was Lyc had taken this
>>into consideration with the ridge in the bottom two.
>>
>>http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment2.jpg
>>
>>So, when I placed the upper cowling in place, there is an increasing gap
>>from top to bottom. Me thinks this does not look right!!
>>
>>http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment3.jpg
>>
>>
>>Anyone run into this? What are my options, put a large washer between the
>>top to mounts and the case?
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
At 03:44 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>Guys I have been running over four years and 500+ hours on a mix of 25%
>100LL, 75% 87 octane no-alcohol unleaded which I purchase from the local
>farm bureau. Never had any trouble, other than the stains it makes on the
>paint. No signs of detonation or elevated temperatures. Typically as a
>flatlander I rarely go above 7500ft and have flown many times where the
>OAT was 95 deg. F. At the moment my fuel costs are $31.98/hr, and if I go
>100% 100LL its $40.00/hr, for a savings of $8.02/hour. (based on 10gph, 87
>octane at $2.93/gal and 100LL at $4.00/gal.). I typically fly 10 hours a
>month, for a net savings of $80.20 a month, $962.40/year. It's worth the
>hassle!
So what happens at up to 17,500' ?
Ron Lee
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: | Re: Engine alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Dana, you want the engine alignment to be perfect before fitting the
cowling. If it is up or down or anything but straight away, (it is offset
however a bit to the left on mine to alleviate the P-factor I was told) you
will have loss of TAS. Make sure you have the proper engine mount for your
particular engine. Recheck the correct washers were used (top was different
than bottom on mine) on the engine mount. I suspect you will find the
problem is somewhere with the engine mount or attachment. Hope this
helps.
Larry with little SunSeeker -- the Indiana RV7
----- Original Message -----
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>
> Larry and any other listers, what my problem appears to be is a
> misalignment of the engine, ie., tilted up with the introduction of the
> washer between the engine mount and case on the bottom to clear the lip on
> the case bottom attach points. If you notice on the third picture, the
> gap gets progressively larger on the bottom of the upper cowl. My
> thinking is the washers have canted the engine up, thereby giving me this
> non standard gap. Any thoughts?
>
> Dana Overall
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: MOGAS (Detonation) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
"Unfortunately they don't reduce the price."
Actually, 85 octane should have more power than 87. The risk of detonation
is greater the lower the octane however.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:42 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
>
> At higher altitudes the octane level needed decreases. The engine
> operates at a lower MP and has less cylinder pressure...it's like
> operating at part throttle even on takeoff. We have 85 octane regular and
> 89 octane premium in CO. Unfortunately they don't reduce the price.
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 3:30 PM
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Ron,
What's 17,500?? Isn't that a nose bleed altitude? :-))) I
intend to use MOGAS in a 50/50 blend in at least one tank until I am
satisfied that with my FI I'll have no problems. Then I may go to 25/75
MOGAS / 100LL in the other tank. If nothing else, it will keep the lead
accumulations down to a low level.
Jim Nelson
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: | Engine alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Larry,
I also had a problem with the lower engine mounts flanges where
the rubber engine mounts meet the case. The steel washer of the engine
mount did not meet up flush with the relief cut on the engine case. It
was about 1/8 protrusion at the bottom. I examined the juncture of the
lower oil / intake case with the upper engine case and found out that if
I ground a small amount of the case at the seam between the two parts I
could get the engine mount to lie flush with the upper case mount. The
cut away portion of the flange was between two bolts that held the lower
part of the engine case to the upper part. My die grinder with an
aluminum burr made short work of both sides. My Tech counselor had not
seen this before so it was a new on him. The cut away portion would not
have any effect on the integrity of the case or sealing surface. I could
take a pix if it would be of any help to you.
Jim Nelson
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: How NOT to turn a fuselage over |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
Just a quick warning for you guys. My neighbors at the airport have been
building a T-18 and the other day they came in the morning to do some
riveting to find that the sawhorses had collapsed under the fuselage. It
caused substantial damage and will set the project back many hours. Scary
thing for me is that I have a much heavier/larger RV-10 fuselage on the same
crappy Home Depot plastic sawhorses......I have even been getting in it to
do hours of work! They think that the heat in our area for the last few
weeks made them fail. It has been over 100F consistently, even up to 117 F.
My focus now is to get the landing gear trunions in so I can mount my
temporary landing gear (more on those in a sec.) I just got the sound
proofing in under the forward floors, sealed the firewall with proseal and
popped down the floors. Now all that is left is to bolt in those trunions.
The temporary landing gear is some pipe I had cut with a couple of bolts
welded on to act as axels...throw in a couple of wheelbarrow tires and you
got the idea. It will set the fuselage about 2 feet off the floor and I will
be able to set the whole works down on the wheels and the side steps. Also
by simply lifting up the tailcone I will be able to move it about the
hanger, wheel barrow style. These guys cost about $100 dollars and when I am
done I will send them on to some other deserving RV 10 builder for their
use. Now I need to get over to the hanger and stick my small refrigerator
under the fuse to act as a back-up to those saw horses.
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 5:13 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
>
> Doc
>
> Check out www.jeffsrv-7a.com
>
> Jeff has a great stand tro rotate the fuse
>
> Frank @ SGU and SLC
>
>
> >From: "Doc Custer" <ddcuster@wmv-co.us>
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV-List: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over?
> >Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:51:59 -0600
> >
> >I am at the point of having the lower half of the 9A fuse riveted and/or
> >clecoed together. It is currently upside down and I need to turn it 90
> >degrees so I can rivet the floor stiffeners on. It now weighs enough that
> >it takes two men and a boy to lift and turn it. And I will be needing to
> >install all kinds of plumbing, wiring etc. and I would like to be able to
> >turn it by myself.
> >
> >I am thinking that there must be a better way than to simply man handle
it
> >with three men.
> >
> >Does anybody out there have an solution?
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >David (Doc) Custer
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
17,500 FEET MSL, Or pick 16,500 Feet, or 14,423 feet. That is
where I fly.
Ron Lee
>Ron,
> What's 17,500?? Isn't that a nose bleed altitude? :-))) I
>intend to use MOGAS in a 50/50 blend in at least one tank until I am
>satisfied that with my FI I'll have no problems. Then I may go to 25/75
>MOGAS / 100LL in the other tank. If nothing else, it will keep the lead
>accumulations down to a low level.
>
>Jim Nelson
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: | Heat muff overheat? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during the
summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff, it
may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you think?
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
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: | D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
I ordered my D10A with the external magnetic (compass) sensor. I was
thinking of installing it in a wingtip or behind the baggage bulkhead,
perhaps.
I just read the installation manual which says the magnetic sensor
should be installed oriented to match the orientation of the D10A (in
the panel) in pitch, roll, and yaw to an accuracy of better than 1
degree. This sounds impractical. Positioning it relative to a longeron
or rib or any component of the airplane could easily have 1 deg. of
error in it.You'd have to be able to measure the orientation of both
units in an absolute sense somehow to get this kind of accuracy.
Perhaps with a surveyors transit and an electronic level I could work it
out, but I have neither.
What have other people done? Does it really need this kind of
accuracy? Or am I the only one foolish enough to order it this way?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr@teleport.com>
At 17:07 2006-07-04, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>At 03:44 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>>Guys I have been running over four years and 500+ hours on a mix of
>>25% 100LL, 75% 87 octane no-alcohol unleaded which I purchase from
>>the local farm bureau. Never had any trouble, other than the
>>stains it makes on the paint. No signs of detonation or elevated
>>temperatures. Typically as a flatlander I rarely go above 7500ft
>>and have flown many times where the OAT was 95 deg. F. At the
>>moment my fuel costs are $31.98/hr, and if I go 100% 100LL its
>>$40.00/hr, for a savings of $8.02/hour. (based on 10gph, 87 octane
>>at $2.93/gal and 100LL at $4.00/gal.). I typically fly 10 hours a
>>month, for a net savings of $80.20 a month, $962.40/year. It's
>>worth the hassle!
>
>
>So what happens at up to 17,500' ?
>
>Ron Lee
The highest I've been is 15,500 and that was on a horse.
I don't have an O2 bottle for the RV-4 so it's only been to 12k (for
a very short period of time).
We ran tens of thousands of gallons of auto gas through the C-182's
we used for jumping years ago and they regularly went to 12,500 and
sometimes to 14,500. Never a fuel problem and saved thousands of
$. Engines went to TBO and beyond as well.
If I were running at 17,500 I'd have to treat it like a special case
and use a special mix. Sorta like scuba divers going deep with a
special air mix. P-)
Mike
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Granby CO Fly-in breakfast |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Saturday, 1 July 2006 was the annual fly in breakfast at Granby CO (KGNB).
Whereas last year about six RVs from MeadowLake flew up I apparently was
the only one this year. Weather was great. Air was calm and cool at 14,500'
The following picture was taken a few years ago
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Granby2003/GrandLakeSmall.jpg
As soon as I got out of the plane I noticed a really nice smell to the
air. It was
probably a combination of crisp air, trees and some moisture. There was a good
variety of planes including the normal multiple RVs
I hung around for about an hour (perhaps a record for me) then departed.
As I crossed the mountains to the plains I listened to the MeadowLake
unicom and a pilot was complaining about the runway in use. The norm
here is to land/take-off on Rwy 15 when the winds are about 5 knots and
less. Some people want to use Rwy 33 with the slightest amount of breeze
out of the north. So instead of listening to the whining I called Denver
approach to make sure that I was not in their preferred arrival/departure
path. By the time that they cut me loose (got rid of me) there were no
pattern problems at MeadowLake.
The MeadowLake runway was recently slurried and looks really great
compared to recent years:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/00V.jpg
Ron Lee
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: Heat muff overheat? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hello Larry,
If you have used a correctly designed cabin heat door or valve on the
firewall there should not be any need to cut off the flow at the supply end.
A correctly designed heat door will spill the muff heated air out to the hot
side of the firewall area in the closed position.
If you wish to cut of the flow of heated air to the lower reaches of the hot
side for cooling and or drag reasons then I would suggest that the heat muff
and hoses for same should be removed for the reasons that you have already
suggested. This of course will disable the cabin heat feature but would most
likely reduce drag by some very hard to measure amount.
Jim in Kelowna - The 6-A slider weighed in at 1134 LB.today O360-A1A with
CS. Have not done W&B as yet
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 8:15 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
>
> Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during
> the
> summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
> cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff,
> it
> may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you
> think?
>
> -
> Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
> Larry@BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Heat muff overheat? |
Take the heatmuff out altogether for the summer months!
You don't need it during that time and your engine will have much less
stuff in the way of disturbing the cooling airflow (down below the
cylinders)!
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bowen
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: RV-List: Heat muff overheat?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff
during the
summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat
muff, it
may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you
think?
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/3/2006
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
You CAN measure the orientation pretty easily. Get out the digital
protractor...or it's time to beg/borrow/steal one if you don't have one
already. They're nifty little tools, worth blowing the bucks on imho.
See the photos on the bottom of this page:
http://www.rvproject.com/20030806.html and one at the top of this page:
http://www.rvproject.com/20030809.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 8:20 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> I ordered my D10A with the external magnetic (compass) sensor. I was
> thinking of installing it in a wingtip or behind the baggage bulkhead,
> perhaps.
>
> I just read the installation manual which says the magnetic sensor should
> be installed oriented to match the orientation of the D10A (in the panel)
> in pitch, roll, and yaw to an accuracy of better than 1 degree. This
> sounds impractical. Positioning it relative to a longeron or rib or any
> component of the airplane could easily have 1 deg. of error in it.You'd
> have to be able to measure the orientation of both units in an absolute
> sense somehow to get this kind of accuracy. Perhaps with a surveyors
> transit and an electronic level I could work it out, but I have neither.
>
> What have other people done? Does it really need this kind of accuracy?
> Or am I the only one foolish enough to order it this way?
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
No reputable source is needed Larry. The fact of the matter is, you can not
get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along with some
water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch). So.......it takes some
OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to
distill the water out and get the pure alcohol. As you surmised, it does
not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of
fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,
like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have ignored
that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL
fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully
renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't consider CO2
a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something "evil" about
it!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
_________________________Original Message_________________________________
Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US
Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that
authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil is in
short supply? Why waste .3 gallons of it?
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: | Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Dan:
Thanks for the pictures (and whole website, for that matter), but
measure it relative to what? I think I can position it within a degree
relative to some bulkhead, but can't the bulkhead be slighly misaligned
with the whole plane or at least the instrument panel? A degree isn't
much.
Dan Checkoway wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> You CAN measure the orientation pretty easily.
--
Tom Sargent
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: | Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Relative to the instrument head itself. Basically measure the angle of the
panel, and add 90 degrees. That gives you your longitudinal offset. Since
the panel itself should be level laterally, level the EDC-D10 laterally.
"Yaw" is removed from the equation by using a bulkhead as the reference
perpendicular to the aircraft's centerline.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:37 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> Dan:
> Thanks for the pictures (and whole website, for that matter), but
> measure it relative to what? I think I can position it within a degree
> relative to some bulkhead, but can't the bulkhead be slighly misaligned
> with the whole plane or at least the instrument panel? A degree isn't
> much.
> Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>>
>> You CAN measure the orientation pretty easily.
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|