Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:13 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Jim Sears)
2. 07:24 AM - I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Knicholas2@aol.com)
3. 08:08 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Ed Bundy)
4. 09:06 AM - Garmin Service (Paul Besing)
5. 09:38 AM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Bayne JUST)
6. 09:44 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Bob J.)
7. 10:14 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Ron Lee)
8. 10:24 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Jim Sears)
9. 10:33 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Jim Sears)
10. 11:19 AM - non-swiveling tail wheel (Jeff Point)
11. 11:19 AM - Fuel Efficiency (Michael Duran)
12. 11:28 AM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Tracy Crook)
13. 11:38 AM - 4 into 1 Exhaust (FATKORAT@aol.com)
14. 12:00 PM - Re: Fuel Efficiency (Mickey Coggins)
15. 12:04 PM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Mickey Coggins)
16. 12:24 PM - fuselage center, f-623 rib question (Charlie England)
17. 12:38 PM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper))
18. 01:29 PM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Denis Walsh)
19. 03:55 PM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Dan Beadle)
20. 04:20 PM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Vanremog@aol.com)
21. 05:10 PM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Ralph Koger)
22. 05:23 PM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Karen and Bob Brown)
23. 07:33 PM - Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Pilot (jellis9847@aol.com)
24. 09:32 PM - Re: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial (Ron Lee)
25. 10:38 PM - Re: non-swiveling tail wheel (Paul Besing)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>> I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives
or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)<<
George and I have had some discussion on this subject
off line; and, I thought the topic was over with. I guess
he doesn't feel that way. Actually, George has thought
seriously about using mogas in an airplane. However,
George is like many on this list who have a nice sum of
cash to work with. With that, he doesn't have the
need, or desire, to try alternative things to help keep
his aviation expenses down. George also has an
engineering background; so, he's not dumber than a
box of rocks, like some of us out here. :-)
>> I appreciate the passion and support some have
for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully
operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of
humor as well.<<
Where we lack in education, those of us who've used
auto gas with FAA's blessings do have a background
of experience. Mine has lasted for about 20 years and
about 2000 hours of flying time with auto gas. Some
of the others have been flying with auto gas for just as
long, if not longer. I don't consider my good fortune
with auto gas to be an exception. It's most likely more
the rule.
> Now for facts.
Now, this is where George, in his good meaning way,
has messed up a little. He's got most things right; but,
he's just like us in that some of his information is not
correct. I don't know all the facts, either. I'm no
engineer and am no expert. I do read a lot and have
the experience with mogas.
>> besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled petroleum).
Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good
for aviation some not, <<
This can be true. In the past, we've been alerted about
some of those chemicals. However, I think it was found
that some of those chemicals were harmful to the
environment and were disallowed. MTBE seems to be
one of the chemicals that is mentioned often. However,
it is approved for our usage. What works in a car should
be OK for the airplane, in most cases. Of course, that's
just speculation on my part; but, I don't think the fuel
manufacturers want autos to fail any more than we want
our aircraft engines to fail. I certainly don't want my fuel
delivery system to melt down, my engine to detonate,
and my engine to melt down, whether it be my auto or
my airplane.
> Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
> is more susceptible to vapor lock.
Sorry, Goerge; but, you still have that one backwards,
which helps to debunk the rest of what you say. Don't
worry, I have had a hard time keeping this one straight,
myself. :-)
> Auto gas, even premium does NOT have the same
> octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit.
I've got to admit he's right. However, most engines
we use today, and certainly most engines we use for
our RVs don't require the use of 100LL. At least,
that's what I've read several times on this list and
in publications.
> Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled
> burning of fuel which can lead to severe engine
> damage.
If it's too low for the engine.
>> In the past Av gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98,
100-130 and 115-145. That has given way to the
ubiquitous 100/100LL<<
One can still sometimes find the 80/87 fuel; but, it's
pretty rare. However, what happened to those engines
that ran on 115/145 fuel? Did those go away; or, did
they get derated to run on 100LL? Surely the FAA
didn't say it's OK to run them on 100LL without some
sort of investigation into it. Can anyone answer that?
Isn't that sort of what we're doing? We're going to
a lower antiknock fuel that can be used instead of
one that is forced on us because nobody makes the
other, anymore?
> Why two numbers? The low number is the lean octane
> rating and the higher number is rich octane rating.
>
> There are four ways to measure fuel for octane:
> Automotive Research, Automotive Motor,
> Aviation Lean and Aviation Rich.
There is more information in the archives about this.
It's interesting reading material for those who are
interested.
> Auto gas has one rating and is average of lean and
> rich rating and there are two methods as listed
> above.
Yes. Check the archives for more info.
>> Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor
octane.100LL avgas if sold at the car pump would be
105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold as Avgas
would be about equiv to 86UL. <<
I won't dispute this because I'd have to look it up;
but, I do remember that the octane rating is lower
for avgas, as he suggests. I think 87 antiknack is
translated to 82UL avgas.
> STC for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and
> the low compression engines ran terrible on the
> default gas grade 100/100LL.
And can be damaged by the lead content.
> Despite the LL (Low Lead) designation,
> there's a lot of lead in 100LL.
About ten times as much as leaded mogas
and four times as much as 80 avgas, per
Petersen's STC information.
>> Therefor low compression engines
designed to run on low octane fuel did not
need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost
octane. That was the beginning of STC's for
automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft as
a substitute for low lead/UL 80 octane.<<
This may be a true statement. Many were
already using the mogas illegally, anyway. The
STC just made it legal.
> Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean
> much in a high compression homebuilt.
Yep; but, I think many of us already realize that there
is a limit as to what engines can use it. However, the
FAA, which George doesn't trust to have the sense
to know what the experts know, thinks that over 90%
of the GA fleet can run on a lower octane fuel, if we
were to lose 100LL. I'm hoping that the FAA has
its own set of experts to work with. I'm betting
they're working with the fuel and engine manufacturers
on this. Surely, they have the right experts.
>> Lycomings come in to flavors, which are certified
for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about
7.2:1CR or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified
for 100/100LL gas, or the old 91/96 Avgas grade. <<
According to my engine list, the engines are 7.5:1 and
8.5:1. I'm no expert on the subject, though.
>> If you buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it
said 92 octane it is only worth about 87 octane.
We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol
every time of course. <<
I think it has to maintain what's stated on the pump
for a period of time. That means it's most likely
the octane that's stated, or very close to it. It
certainly won't be that much below what's stated
on the pump unless George really means the 87
is the avgas equivalent.
>> Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on it? Well that
is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane.
I guess you can reduce the timing advance a little
as a precaution?<<
And this is where we differ. George won't use it in
his airplane; but, I might. It depends on what engine
I have.
> Lycoming strongly recommends NOT using MOGAS.
As I told George off line, Lycoming is not going to stick
its neck out because its lawyers are dead against it. To
cover their asses, they'll stick with certified fuels in their
certified engines. Of course, the same company is
being left behind by companies like Superior and ECI
who aren't as afraid as Lycoming. Superior and ECI
tend to cater more to us and are willing to try new
things. Lycoming may end up finding itself without a
customer base, if it continues listening to lawyers
instead of the fastest growing segment of GA.
>> Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact
makes a very low compression O360 for flying in
third world countries to run on low grade fuel. <<
I'm betting that's the 167hp version with the 7.5:1
compression ratio. I've thought about building one
of those up for myself. With that, I'd have a lot
more hp than my current 150 hp engine and could
still run my engine on 87 antiknock fuel.
> Unfortunately most 320's and 360's have 8:50:1CR
> and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas.
I have a new car that requires 91, or better, antiknock
fuel. However, I read the fine print and found that it
will run on 87 antiknock fuel. There would be some
power reduction, though. I may be wrong; but, I'm
betting Lycoming has done the same thing. They've
given themselves a nice margin for error in their
fuel requirements. That's why it's been found that
we can actually run them on lower octane fuels with
no adverse effects. Of course, this is speculation on
my part.
>> If you are willing to test, haul and store your
own auto gas and run your engine on less than the
recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have
a low compression engine than auto gas makes more
sense. <<
Which many of us are doing.
> You may want to look into reducing your timing and
> all the other things
For those with very high compression ratios, and some
who have the lower compression ratios and want to
do it that way, having automatic retardation is the cat's
meow and may be the way of the future for us to get
away from 100LL, altogether.
>>.I mentioned about keeping the
fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the
MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to
assure no loss of power due to vapor lock.<<
I don't know who ridiculed George; but, it was not I
I've flown three airplanes extensively on auto gas. Not
one of them had a fuel return system. Since I don't
consider firesleeve a good insulator in normal operation,
I don't have my fuel system insulated. I do have a couple
of blast tubes for the RV; but, my prior two aircraft did
not have them. All three have worked well with auto gas.
If I were going to use a FI engine, I'd most likely install
a fuel return system to make me more comfortable with
it. However, I've not had that much trouble with vapor
locking and would opt to stay with the KISS method
on my carb engines. That works for me. You guys may
want to go with fuel returns. That's what makes this
whole thing so neat. We can do what is right for each
of us.
>>If you have a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an
octane stand point, as long as it does not have the
alcohol and ethanol. (However ethanol does increase
the octane rating, see below).<<
I believe ethanol is a form of alcohol; but, I might be
wrong on that. I do think the 7.5: 1 engines have the
advantage, though. When one does the formula to
convert the 87 antiknock to avgas, it's the 82UL
we've seen in the past, if memory serves me. Since
7.5:1 engines are designed for 80, I don't worry
about the octane, as much.
>> If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk
of water contamination since it absorbs water. Once
airborne it cools the water comes out of the fuel
and water contamination result in loss of power. <<
This could be a real problem in cold weather. Here
is one little rub in that, though. What about all the
cars that run on it? Why don't they have frozen fuel
lines, stopped up tanks, and stopped up fuel filters
from using it? Anyone ever given that one a thought?
It may not be that much of a problem, in that sense.
I wonder how cold it would have to be for the
separation to happen. I'm more concerned about
what it can do to components in the system. As
others have stated, that may not be as much of a
problem, anymore.
> Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol).
I won't dispute that because I don't know. I do
know that my Lycoming engines have rarely, if
ever, showed symptoms of icing up. The C172
I owned had a Continental in it. Boy, that thing
would ice up, in a heart beat. I'm not saying it
won't happen; but, I'm betting it would be a
minor issue. I'd be more concerned about the
power output from alcohol. From what I'm
reading, it takes a lot more alcohol to produce
what gas produces.
>>That is why it is important to test your auto gas.
Also ethanol is not compatible with the rubber
and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell,
which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the
past. <<
I must admit I haven't been real good about testing
my fuels. I have tested it, in the past; but, I'm not
one to do it with every fuel purchase. Some will
critisize me for my lack of action; but, I tend to
buy gas where alcohol is not in the fuel. If I lived
near a large city, I'd test it regularly.
>> These are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please
ask lots of questions of those who are experts in the
topic. I think we have a few on this list (seriously :-)<<
I don't claim to have all the answers; but, I do try to
help. Our archives are full of good information on
the use of auto gas.
>> I am not an expert but than I don't have to jump of a
bridge to know it might hurt when I hit the water. I
know if your engine stops while flying in a plane it
can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as
AVgas. The debate is it good enough. May be. <<
Actually, I think mogas is better than avgas. I have
less problems with mogas than I do with avgas. I've
had cylinders off my engines for problems not relating
to mogas usage and have yet to find symptoms of
detonation,etc. On the contrary, I've found the engine
to be clean on the inside. No lead. Every time I fill
my plane up with 100LL, I get the fouled plugs and
lead related bad run ups.
> What I know about auto gas is enough to discourage
> me.
George is lucky in that he has a job that pays very well.
Making his decision was easy for him. However, there
are those of us who are grass roots enthusiasts who do
not have large incomes. We have to think differently
and search out alternatives that work for us. Either is
just fine. As best I know, I'm probably the only one
at our airport who regularly uses autogas for fuel. I'm
probably one of the few who is retired, as well. The
rest are well paid folks, with most having businesses
of their own. They complain about the cost of 100LL;
but, they continue to use avgas because they can
afford it. I can't. Mogas works for me.
>> Ethanol does help octane so if you can get some
"sub grade" fuel before the distribution puts in
the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit
on octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane
with ethanol is really 89 octane without the ethanol.
This is like 84 aviation. To get "sub grade" you need
to get it at the distribution terminal before they add
the ethanol.<<
Let me try to remember. If octane increases, that
slows the burn more to make it more uniform. That
translates to more power. Why is it that ethanol is
apt to give less power and require more fuel to do
the same thing as ethanol free fuels? Just curious.
I would think ethanol is more of an environmental
issue additive than for octane boosting. That's why
one will find it more around big cities where smog
is a problem. What say you experts?
>> 84 octane is not enough for higher compression 91/96
engines. If you have a 80 octane O320 140/150HP Lyc,
than by all means go for it. <<
I'm sorry, George, I'm getting lost in your octane ratings.
They're jumping all over the map. However, if one is
using a 140/150/167/235 hp Lyc, one is safe to use
87 antiknock fuel. As for the 8.5:1, Superior stands
behind their engines using 91-92 antiknock mogas. I
suggest that they would not do that unless their engines
can be run safely on it. If I were to buy a new engine
for my RV, I'd look very seriously at buying a new
engine from an engine manufacturer that supports our
needs. It appears that Superior, and maybe ECI,
does. Lycoming would be my last choice, even
though their engine will most likely do as well as
the Superior engine on the same fuels.
>> Some debate about reducing timing for the high
compression engines.<<
At some point, this will probably have to be done.
>> Lycoming is testing UL blends and the gas companies
are working on the 95UL as a 100/100LL replacement. <<
Most of our engines can run on it.
>>Remember there are more high compression than low
compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high
end piston engines, turbo charged and so on NEED
the high end gas, only make up 30% of the fleet but
use 70% of the gas. So all you C65 & C85 engine
Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but with
the UL it should be OK.<<
I'm betting a lot of cub drivers are pouring in auto gas.
Those engines will run nicely on it. They aren't stuck
with avgas. The ones in trouble are the ones with the
super hot engines.
>> IF I HAD an 80 octane engine AND the gas prices
kept going up I would consider auto gas it. (THERE I
SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)<<
Not really. Gas is always going to go up. One has to
get to where the cost is prohibitive. It hasn't gotten
there for most of us. When it does, many of us will
just get out of aviation. Look at the other countries
where gas is way more than we pay. There is very
little general aviation. We'll see the same thing, here.
It won't have to go up much more to leave this
retiree behind. There is already talk around our
airport by some who think it's about time to get out.
The fuel is still cheap enough that we can sell our
airplanes at reasonable prices. If it goes up much
more, and aviation declines, we won't be able to
give them away. Oh, yeah. Aviation is declining,
it seems. That's why AOPA is asking us to help
out. The average Joe can't afford start in aviation,
anymore. Some of us may fall by the wayside, as
well. It will trully become a rich man's hobby. The
use of auto gas may not matter, then.
>> As I said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about
what you can expect to save per year. Some of the
guys who live where fuel is cheap and ethanol is not
forced down their throat, good for them. If you have a
High compression engine and ethanol free fuel is hard
to find at the pump than not so good.<<
This is a fact of life. Not everyone can partake in its
use; but, many of us can and do.
>> For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump,
filling with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor
pressure and knowing there's no bad chemicals in it
with out having to test it, is worth it to me.<<
Yep. Isn't it nice you can have it your way? The key
is doing what makes you feel comfortable. Many of
us feel very comfortable pouring auto gas into our
tanks. It works for us.
>>To each his own, I'll never say never but at some
point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly. <<
That is a fate that all of us face. I see my end in
aviation coming too fast. :-(
Sorry for the long response; but, I feel it's necessary
to defend what I believe in. Use of mogas in airplanes
isn't for everyone; but, giving false information isn't
going to help, either. George means well; but, he's
like the rest of us. He's learning. However, one
must realize that the old tales about how mogas will
cause us to crash have been disproved. Now, some
engine manufacturers are backing its use. That's
good enough for me!
Jim Sears in KY
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: | I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke and I
need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) and they had no idea
what I was talking about. I have tried 2 different email addresses (via the
archives) for Mr. Koger and each has bounced back.
Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a replacement slider
piece?
Thanks!
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Auburn, WA
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: | The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy@speedyquick.net>
As someone who long ago made up my mind not to use Mogas (for a variety of
reasons) I still found this discussion interesting.
I personally don't think the *potential* risks outweigh the monetary
savings. I don't know if I fit into the "nice sum of cash" camp, but I know
that I DO give up other things that I would like (such as an automobile
built after 1988) in order to fly an RV.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned (although I confess I have skipped a lot
of this topic) is that a few years ago Avgas was twice as expensive as Mogas
($2 vs. $1). Now the same $1 differential exists, but at $4 vs. $3 Mogas is
"only" 25% cheaper.
Sorry, but with all the expenses of airplane ownership, a 25% savings on
fuel is not worth ANY possibility of Mogas problems. Not to mention the
hassle factor of lugging your own airplane fuel around. Yuck.
Ed Bundy
>> I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
> I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives
> or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
> cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)<<
> George is like many on this list who have a nice sum of
> cash to work with. With that, he doesn't have the
> need, or desire, to try alternative things to help keep
> his aviation expenses down. George also has an
> engineering background; so, he's not dumber than a
> box of rocks, like some of us out here. :-)
--
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
I remember someone stating a problem with Garmin
service a while back, and thought I would add to the
discussion. I have a Garmin 396 that I had mounted in
an Airgizmos panel dock. When working on my new
panel, the antenna wire touched a breaker and somehow
damaged the ground portion of the 396. It wouldn't
recognize any external power anymore!
So I sent it back, to see if it would be fixed under
warranty. It was shipped out from them 3 days later
via second day air, no charge. It had a couple of
scratches on it, and one small scratch on the screen I
wasn't happy about before hand. They replaced the
entire front and back covers of the unit as well, all
no charge.
That's pretty darn good service I'd say for a large
corporation like Garmin.
Paul Besing
__________________________________________________
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: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bayne JUST <bjust@cox.net>
The paper work that came with my Koger Sun Shade shows:
Ralph Koger
1947 W. 1st ext.
Boone, IA 50036
515 432 5714
Bayne Just
RV9A
SEE Gillespie field
San Diego, CA
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Knicholas2@aol.com wrote:
> One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke
> and I need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it)
> and they had no idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2
> different email addresses (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each
> has bounced back.
>
> Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a
> replacement slider piece?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Auburn, WA
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
I don't think anyone can claim to be an expert on whether or not mogas is
suitable for their airplanes unless they try it and see if it works in their
airplane. Forget the numbers (compression ratio, octane, vapor pressure,
etc.) For me 25% 100LL and 75% 87 octane sans alcohol mix works for me and
I can't tell a bit of difference when I'm fueled up with 100% 100LL. My
lines are firesleeved, no problem in the summer temperatures. It works for
me and as far as I care those are the facts, everything else is conjecture.
I've borescoped the cylinders to look for any signs of detonation, and there
are none. My oil analysis reports always come back good.
I have 9:1 pistons in the rocket, will likely go 50/50 on the fuel mixture,
but have to see what works best thru some trial and error.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 700+hours, F1 under const.
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>Actually, I think mogas is better than avgas. I have
>less problems with mogas than I do with avgas. I've
>had cylinders off my engines for problems not relating
>to mogas usage and have yet to find symptoms of detonation,etc. On the
>contrary, I've found the engine
>to be clean on the inside. No lead. Every time I fill
>my plane up with 100LL, I get the fouled plugs and
>lead related bad run ups.
Don't take this the wrong way but that may be operating
technique. I use 100LL and fly more than most folks and
I don't have fouled plug issues on every fillup. I think that
I have had three cases in 900 hours and most were probably
because I failed to lean the engine after startup. I would
prefer a fuel with little or no lead because it does require
periodic maintenance to clean the plugs.
Ron Lee
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
> As someone who long ago made up my mind not to use
> Mogas (for a variety of > reasons) I still found this
> discussion interesting.
>
These discussions can be very interesting, especially if there
is a distinct polarity between those who use auto gas and
those who don't. :-)
> I personally don't think the *potential* risks outweigh the
> monetary savings. I don't know if I fit into the "nice sum
> of cash" camp, but I know that I DO give up other things
> that I would like (such as an automobile built after 1988)
> in order to fly an RV.
>
Each of us less fortunate folks has to give up something to
get to fly. I had to give the idea of having a big fancy house
and the mortgage payments that go with it. :-) As for the
potential risks, I've found very few. In fact, I feel good
enough about using auto gas that I've taken up over 300
kids in the Young Eagles program with auto gas in the
tanks. I've not lost one, yet. I've had more problems with
100LL and its fouling tendencies.
We all get so hooked on the risks involved that we forget
the risk we take by just driving to the airport. I'm not going
to belittle anyone for not wanting to try mogas; but, I would
not tell you that it's safe knowing it's not. I'm not the most
brave/macho pilot in the world; so, I'm not fond of taking
risks, either. I trusted in those who did the testing to be
right and gave it a try. I've not regretted it, yet.
> One thing I haven't seen mentioned (although I confess
> I have skipped a lot > of this topic) is that a few years
> ago Avgas was twice as expensive as Mogas ($2 vs. $1).
> Now the same $1 differential exists, but at $4 vs. $3 Mogas
> is "only" 25% cheaper.
>
That's a neat way to look at it; but, it's more than that. There
is still that $1+ price differential that keeps that savings way
up there. Also keep in mind that our incomes haven't been
inflated at the same rate as gas; so, that savings that we were
talking about a couple of years ago is still substantial to us,
today. As a note of interest, my retirement income will never
increase; so, a dollar saved is a dollar earned. :-)
> Sorry, but with all the expenses of airplane ownership,
> a 25% savings on fuel is not worth ANY possibility of
> Mogas problems. Not to mention the hassle factor of
> lugging your own airplane fuel around. Yuck.
>
Ed is comfortable with his decision and has his reasons;
but, there aren't that many risks. I've had engine problems
with my aircraft, just as any aricraft owner does. I've had
to replace cylinders because the tubes in the sump loosened
up. I've had to overhaul an engine because it had sat for
a while before I bought it. The cam gave it up. I had to
replace a cylinder because the oil ring stuck. Have you
noticed I've said nothing about detonation, yet? There
hasn't been any that we've found. In each case, the
problem was something totally unrelated to the type of
fuel I was using. That's in about 2000 hours of flying on
auto gas.
Gang, I'm not here to recruit anyone from joining me
unless you want to. If you want to, there are those of
us who have chosen to try auto gas and have been
very successful at it. To me, it's worth the hassle. When
it no longer is, I'm sure I'll be priced out of aviation. At
that point, it will be moot.
Jim in KY
do not archive.
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
> I don't think anyone can claim to be an expert on
> whether or not mogas is suitable for their airplanes
> unless they try it and see if it works in their airplane.
That's kinda how I see it. Those who haven't tried it,
and are listening to others who are dead set against it,
may be missing out on something that not only saves
money from fuel purchase. It could reduce costs in
operation from lead deposit problems, as well.
> Forget the numbers (compression ratio, octane,
> vapor pressure, etc.) For me 25% 100LL and 75%
> 87 octane sans alcohol mix works for me and I can't
> tell a bit of difference when I'm fueled up with 100%
> 100LL.
Bob is using a little more conservative mix than I do;
but, I've found that having a 25% mix of 100LL all
but eliminates vapor lock problems on those days
when I'm doing quick turnarounds for Yound Eagles.
Like Bob, I can't tell the difference between the
performance of 100LL and the 87 antiknock from
around the corner. In fact, my little RV's engine ran
just fine on it, this morning. :-)
> My lines are firesleeved, no problem in the summer
> temperatures. It works for me and as far as I care
> those are the facts, everything else is conjecture.
I like this man's attitude. :-)
> I've borescoped the cylinders to look for any signs
> of detonation, and there are none. My oil analysis
> reports always come back good.
Same here on both counts. In fact, I get better oil
analysis reports on auto gas.
> I have 9:1 pistons in the rocket, will likely go 50/50
> on the fuel mixture, but have to see what works best
> thru some trial and error.
That kind of testing should be report to us, Bob. I'd
like to know how well the higher compression ratio
engines do with it. I'm confident with the 8.5:1 engines
because Superior has stepped up to back it.
So, you see, here is another happy RVer who is using
auto gas with no problems. We aren't alone, fellas.
Jim in KY
do not archive
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: | non-swiveling tail wheel |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Does anyone know how much travel the old style non-swiveling tail wheels
had? I'm looking for degrees side to side from center.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee
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 |
|
I'm also into fuel efficiency, and would like to suggest that you folks calculating
NM/gal plug travel destinations into maps.google and then compare the efficiency
of your airplane travel with that of driving a stupid utility vehicle
going the same distance. If you haven't already. The curvier the roads, the
better to fly.
If Deltahawk ever gets their stuff together I'll finish this 7A and start doing
some "extreme" efficiency/mileage experiments :-). Anyone else waiting on this
pixie-dust engine?
Mike Duran
M20C
7A - airframe finished, treading water
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: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
That was seriously Cool data Dan.
Thanks also to Ed Bundy who supplied his numbers. It is surprisingly
hard to find RV drivers who keep track of this stuff (too busy having
fun in these things which I also understand : )
be a significant advantage. If you ever get the chance Dan, I'd like
to see you do the same test but instead of dropping manifold pressure
only, try dropping the prop rpm to get the same fuel flow numbers you
used. This should reduce pumping losses and result in even better
numbers. "Do not operate" zones on the prop rpm is the only possible
problem I can think of. I don't have that problem with my fixed pitch
wood prop but I have to put up with very high pumping losses, especially
at low altitude (which is another reason I cruise high).
Bottom line is that based on this info, I don't see a nickel's worth of
difference between the Lyc (when run LOP) and my Mazda rotary when it
comes to fuel economy. Cleanliness of the airframe makes more
difference than the engine. I always burn less fuel than the guys who
run Lycs ROP.
The horror stories about the fuel consumption of the rotary are based on
automotive experience. Ironically, the rotary is at it's worst in auto
use. The lower the engine load, the worse the rotary is. Car's
typically run at 10% or less power settings. At low power settings the
flame goes out in the large quench areas of the rotary combustion
chamber resulting in more unburned mixture. The higher the power load
is, the longer the flame stays lit and more complete combustion results.
The crumby results on the rotary RV-8 comparisons they did at Van's home
drome were the results of two factors.
1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage. They
should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two
engine types (it is not the same).
2. The EFI controllers used with the Powersport engines do not allow
the pilot to optimize the mixture. They were essentially running at
full rich the whole time. The designers of it did not consider the
users capable of deciding this and programmed what they thought was the
safest mixture setting (rich).
Tracy Crook
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Checkoway<mailto:dan@rvproject.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
Tracy, you might get a kick out of this:
http://www.rvproject.com/20060419.html<http://www.rvproject.com/20060419.
html>
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (967 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com<http://www.rvproject.com/>
----- Original Message -----
From: Tracy Crook<mailto:lors01@msn.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
RV planes aren't gas guzzlers! At 8000 ft on an economy cruise
setting
you get over 24 mpg (assuming no head wind) I would say that's
pretty
good. Fly at 10,000ft or 11,000ft and you get even better
millage.
That's better than I get in my Ford Ranger. It's only about 6 mpg
away
from what some call a high millage for cars. My 24 mpg figure was
based
on the range listed on Van's website for an RV-7 at 55% power with
the
160 hp engine.
do not archive.
Chris W
KE5GIX
Good data point, I hadn't read that on Van's site.
I typically fly higher than 8000 feet, and since I've always been
an efficiency freak, my engine monitor has a readout directly in MPG
(based on TAS and fuel flow). I spend a lot of time tweaking & tuning
to eke out that last possible .1 mpg on those long cross countries. At
15,500 I can do a little better than 30 MPG at 175 mph TAS. Anyone
else into fuel efficiency? I'd love to hear your numbers. I honestly
don't know how the rotary engine compares to a Lyc when flown for max
efficiency. But I suspect it isn't much different.
While I have always been into energy efficiency, I have grown
weary of the painfully stupid mass media debate on the subject. Many
of the same folks who demand better fuel economy standards are often the
same ones to decry small cars as dangerous. Now I intend to use all
the fuel I want while dreading the day someone decides that private
aviation is too much of a security risk.
Tracy Crook (Wacko of many types)
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: | 4 into 1 Exhaust |
For those of you looking for a 4 into 1 exhaust may I suggest
Kevin Murray of Sky Dynamics. I just received my 4 into 1
for my RV-8 / IO-390 and it is a thing of beauty. Kevin
supplies exhausts for the likes of Patty Wagstaff, Sean Tucker,
Jim Leroy, and Dave Anders.
at www.skydynamics.com
Bob Gibbons
RV-8 Waiting 6 months for an MT prop.
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 Efficiency |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> If Deltahawk ever gets their stuff together I'll finish this 7A and
> start doing some "extreme" efficiency/mileage experiments :-). Anyone
> else waiting on this pixie-dust engine?
All the "pie in the sky" stuff is for my next airplane. You've got
your Mooney to fly, but many of us are renting while we build. I'm
in serious "get'er done" mode.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> 1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage. They
> should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two
> engine types (it is not the same).
Tracy,
What is the fixed prop RPM rule? I don't recall reading anything
about this in the article. Apologies if it was there and I missed it.
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: | fuselage center, f-623 rib question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Greetings, those who have gone before,
I'm clecoing the mid section bottom skin to the seat & baggage ribs,
trying to interpret the drawings on dwg22 (view C-C).
My F623L & R ribs have a joggle on the outside vertical flange where it
meets the F705 bulkhead. The joggle seems intended to allow a rivet to
tie the side skin, f705 bulkhead & the outside flange of the F623
together. However, view C-C (side view of this point) seems to show the
F623 rib being cut off just short of the F705 bulkhead flange. If I cut
nothing, I'll have a joggle in the bottom skin (obviously wrong). If I
cut as shown in view C-C, I'm cutting off a joggle in the flange that
Van's went to the trouble of adding to the rib.
My 1st thought is to cut the inside flange & horizontal surface of the
F623 & leave the joggled tab for riveting to F705. Should I do something
different?
Bonus question1: The instructions say to cut a 1 1/2" hole in one of the
baggage ribs if you intend to add a step. Is there any harm in cutting
this hole if no step is planned? (grams add up to ounces add up to
pounds....)
Bonus question2: Any harm in enlarging the back tooling holes in the
seat ribs to 5/8", like the front ones? (possible future wiring path, if
needed)
Thanks,
Charlie
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
--> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
The seasonal blending and geographical blending by automotive gasoline
refiners does have a significant effect on the operation of the engines.
When I was Terminal Superintendent of the Union 76 tank farms at San
Diego and Imperial (El Centro) Terminals back in the early 1980's, we
used to back haul the Imperial "desert gasoline" for the coastal San
Diego's California Highway Patrol during certain seasons of the year for
fuelling the 24/7 patrolcars that ran severe duty periods of idling and
high speed pursuits.
As engines used in aircraft adopt modern automotive computers utilizing
such monitors as temperature probes and O2 sensors, the engines will be
able to finely tune themselves as they encounter differing weather and
altitudes. With the 1930's technology of many of our Lycoming &
Continental aircraft engines, this thread has been informative with its
cautions and could prevent damage from unexpected power off landings or
even save some lives.
If a plane is based on a private strip at a rural home, farm or ranch
where automotive gasoline for vehicles and equipment can be delivered by
commercial tankwagon, the savings can be measurable if the automotive
fuel is found to be adequate for the aircraft engine.
Our local fairly busy airport, with commercial airline service on its
6,559 foot runway with ILS, only pumps 150,000 gallons of Aviation
gasoline a year. If this were a corner filling station pumping only
150,000 gallons in just a month - it would be facing closure for being
uneconomical. Refiners are making aviation gasoline more as a service
than a profit center. We need to continue to educate ourselves about
alternate fuels as aviation gasoline will no doubt have to change from
the currently available 100LL to a fuel that has other shared
applications to make it at least marginally profitable to produce and
distribute.
As to the flamers and naysayers . . . "Don't confuse me with the facts,
I've already made up my mind."
Pete Cowper
RV-8 #81139 (working on fuselage)
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
He used to live near the Lauritsens. If all else fails, call
Cleaveland Tool and I am sure they can get you fixed up.
Denis Walsh
On Jul 8, 2006, at 07:18 299370007, Knicholas2@aol.com wrote:
> One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke
> and I need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it)
> and they had no idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2
> different email addresses (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each
> has bounced back.
>
> Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a
> replacement slider piece?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Auburn, WA
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: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
_____
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 3:49 PM
And, airplane mileage is often 10-25% less, improving real economy to right
up there with a micro car.
_____
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:05 PM
RV planes aren't gas guzzlers! At 8000 ft on an economy cruise setting
you get over 24 mpg (assuming no head wind) I would say that's pretty
good. Fly at 10,000ft or 11,000ft and you get even better millage.
That's better than I get in my Ford Ranger. It's only about 6 mpg away
from what some call a high millage for cars. My 24 mpg figure was based
on the range listed on Van's website for an RV-7 at 55% power with the
160 hp engine.
do not archive.
Chris W
KE5GIX
Good data point, I hadn't read that on Van's site.
I typically fly higher than 8000 feet, and since I've always been an
efficiency freak, my engine monitor has a readout directly in MPG (based on
TAS and fuel flow). I spend a lot of time tweaking & tuning to eke out that
last possible .1 mpg on those long cross countries. At 15,500 I can do a
little better than 30 MPG at 175 mph TAS. Anyone else into fuel
efficiency? I'd love to hear your numbers. I honestly don't know how the
rotary engine compares to a Lyc when flown for max efficiency. But I
suspect it isn't much different.
While I have always been into energy efficiency, I have grown weary of the
painfully stupid mass media debate on the subject. Many of the same folks
who demand better fuel economy standards are often the same ones to decry
small cars as dangerous. Now I intend to use all the fuel I want while
dreading the day someone decides that private aviation is too much of a
security risk.
Tracy Crook (Wacko of many types)
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: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
In a message dated 7/8/2006 9:41:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bjust@cox.net writes:
The paper work that came with my Koger Sun Shade shows:
Ralph Koger
1947 W. 1st ext.
Boone, IA 50036
515 432 5714
===========================================
Also this kind of stuff is always just a mouse click away in the Yeller
Pages at _http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/_
(http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/)
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 792hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
RV list, I have changed to a cable server and my old e-mail address is not
correct. My web site will be updated as soon as Mike Lauritson get home from
the Washington show. www.Cleavelandtool.com/kogercompany/ Web site.
If anyone needs parts send me the model of shade and your address and I will
send them to you. Over the past 10+ years I have had very little breakage
and replacements. I want to keep your Koger SunShade in good condition.
ralphkoger@gmail.com or r.koger@mchsi.com
Phone 515-432-5714
Thank You for buying my sunshade and the RV list.
Ralph Koger
On 7/8/06, Knicholas2@aol.com <Knicholas2@aol.com> wrote:
>
> One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke and I
> need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) and they had no
> idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2 different email addresses
> (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each has bounced back.
>
> Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a replacement
> slider piece?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Auburn, WA
>
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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
FWIW, before gluing the canopy and windscreen (and skirts) on my 7A frame
and fuselage with Sikaflex, I bought some black Sikaflex295UV and did a few
Dr. Destructo pull tests using scrap pieces of plexi and pieces of both
powder coated steel and aluminum. Thickness of the adhesive beads was
controlled with rubber hose washers at 3/16ths inch per the product data
sheet manuals. On one pull test, I tore the aluminum sheet (.032) and the
Sika joint never failed. In all my other tests, the plexi failed. The
Sika joints never failed. I can only presume the product that failed was
out of date (either the primer, the wash or the adhesive or all) or there
was some other contaminant present at the point of adhesion. This product
has been sold as an adhesive for polycarbonate and plexiglass for years. It
is recognized as an industry standard for the application we are using it
for. I suppose time will tell, but there are installations in RV's out
there now with over 5 years on them. If anyone knows of any other failures,
I'd sure like to hear the details about them. I can only speak about my
installation, which shows no sign of being anything but solid. I did return
some tubes of Sikaflex which were out of date when I received them. I'd
suggest looking at those dates closely. One thing I've learned from using
Sikaflex 295 is that it will absolutely not stick to a surface that has not
been properly prepped (both surfaces sanded w/60 grit, washed, primed).
Also note there are time limits.wait 20 minutes after the wash coat before
priming. Adhesive must be applied within 2 hrs of priming. I used to freak
out if I got some Sikaflex on the canopy outside my masked bead area.later I
just left it on until it cured, because it would peel off as easy as rivet
tape if it was not applied over a properly prepped area.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Bob and Karen Brown
RV7A - flying
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: | Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Pilot |
Hi All,
Is there anyone out there who has tried to connect a Blue Mountain EFIS G3 Lite
to a Trutrak Pictorial Pilot?
I have the Serial Port B connected to the Pictorial Pilot but the autopilot doesn't
recognize the GPS input.
I suspect that I don't have the correct settings in the EFIS (choices include GPSS
and NMEA 0183 among others). BMA Tech Support says they haven't tested this
autopilot so that can't give me the correct settings.
Anybody out there have any ideas?
Thanks
Jim Ellis
RV9-A, Flying
________________________________________________________________________
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: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial |
Page 5 has this info. Looks like NMEA-0183 on Pin 3. Have you tried that
format?
P101 Pin Function Notes
1 Autopilot Master (+12 to +14 V DC). The autopilot itself draws less than
0.3 ampere. Most of the current required by the system is used by the servo
(up to 1Amp depending on torque setting) and a smaller amount (up to 180
mA) for the illuminated pushbuttons.
2 Control Wheel Switch. Connect as shown in wiring diagram to a SPST
momentary switch located remotely to the autopilot for convenient
engage/disengage function.
3 Primary Serial Input. Baud rate selectable 1200,2400,4800 or 9600 baud.
Automatically decodes NMEA-0183, Garmin Aviation Format, or Apollo/UPSAT
Moving-Map format. Provides directional reference to the autopilot.
4,5,6
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: non-swiveling tail wheel |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
It will go 90, but not much more than that before the
chains bind up. Another words, the chains are the
limiting factor..the will swivel but the chains
inhibit the movement. Will be upgrading to swivel
tailwheel soon!
Paul Besing
--- Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point
> <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> Does anyone know how much travel the old style
> non-swiveling tail wheels
> had? I'm looking for degrees side to side from
> center.
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6
> Milwaukee
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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! --
|