Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:19 AM - Re: How to fly Constant Speed? (Kevin Horton)
2. 04:19 AM - Re: Aerobatics and gyro's (Dale Walter)
3. 05:29 AM - Re: Aerobatics and gyro's (Jerry Springer)
4. 05:29 AM - FW: powder coating panel - how big holes? (Parker Thomas)
5. 05:29 AM - Re: exhaust bolt torque (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
6. 06:06 AM - Re: FW: powder coating panel - how big holes? (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
7. 06:35 AM - Instruments for Sale (Richard Seiders)
8. 06:56 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
9. 07:39 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Charlie Kuss)
10. 08:06 AM - Re: "you're gonna die because you use autogas" ()
11. 08:12 AM - Re: Aerobatics and gyro's (Vanremog@aol.com)
12. 08:17 AM - Re: Aerobatics and gyro's (Mitchell Faatz)
13. 09:19 AM - New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Terry Watson)
14. 09:22 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
15. 09:31 AM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Konrad L. Werner)
16. 09:56 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Tedd McHenry)
17. 09:58 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (dsvs@comcast.net)
18. 10:51 AM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Bob J.)
19. 12:40 PM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Larry Bowen)
20. 01:34 PM - Re: How to fly Constant Speed? (LessDragProd@aol.com)
21. 02:18 PM - MAC servo supplier (Jan)
22. 02:19 PM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (LarryRobertHelming)
23. 02:42 PM - Re: How to fly Constant Speed? (low pass)
24. 03:08 PM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Terry Watson)
25. 04:10 PM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
26. 04:10 PM - Re: MAC servo supplier (Charlie Kuss)
27. 04:55 PM - Re: MAC servo supplier (D.Bristol)
28. 05:54 PM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Ed Holyoke)
29. 06:09 PM - Re: How to fly Constant Speed? (Ed Bundy)
30. 06:18 PM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Tim Olson)
31. 06:35 PM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
32. 07:02 PM - Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake (Tim Lewis)
33. 07:02 PM - Re: Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
34. 07:22 PM - Re: Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch (UFOBUCK@aol.com)
35. 07:54 PM - Re:Clothes pins (Mark Grieve)
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: How to fly Constant Speed? |
"Oversquare" in this context has traditionally meant operation where
the MP value in inches of HG exceeds the rpm divided by 100. I.e. a
MP of greater than 24" HG at 2400 rpm. The Lycoming power charts
specifically allow oversquare operation. E.g., 29" HG MP and 2300 is
OK for continuous operations on the IO-360-A. The whole "avoid
oversquare operations" thing is not directly applicable to our
engines. It had it's root in a few old radial engines that didn't
like such operations. Every engine has some limit of MP vs rpm where
it won't be happy, but on many engines that limit is not at the magic
"oversquare" point.
The info in the Lycoming Operator's Manual doesn't prohibit operation
with MP exceeding the values on the power charts. They just indicate
that this is the limit for continuous operations. Typically, engine
manufacturers establish power limits for take-off, with a five minute
time limit, and another set of limits for continuous operation. So
Lycoming should have no problem if the MP vs rpm limit for continuous
operations is exceeded during take-off.
The rpm during a full throttle climb on a FP aircraft is higher than
the rpm during take-off. I except that the MP vs rpm relationship is
quite close to Lycoming's continuous limit for the first part of the
climb, but the MP drops as the altitude increases. So, in practice,
very little time is spent with the MP greater than Lycoming's limit
for continuous operations. There are thousands of Lycoming-powered
FP RVs flying, and the service history suggests that this is not a
problem area.
Typical fixed-pitch type-certificated aircraft have static rpms that
are higher than RVs, as they don't need such a coarse pitch prop
(their lower cruise speed allows a finer pitch prop). I expect
typical fixed-pitch type-certificated aircraft to have rpm/MP
combinations that fall within, or not far outside, Lycoming's limit
for continuous operation.
Kevin Horton
On 11 Jul 2006, at 19:43, Konrad L. Werner wrote:
> On a sidenote on running oversquare:
> How does one with a fixed pitch propeller operating from low
> altitude or even sea level deal with said oversquare scenario's?
> Isn't that pretty much an oversquare situation right from the get-
> go when one applies full take off power?
> As a Manifold Pressure Gauge is not required in a fixed pitch
> airplane, how would one even know how much oversquare they are
> during the takeoff roll?
>
> Just wondering...
>
> do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Horton
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How to fly Constant Speed?
>
> It all depends on the exact engine model. If you look at the power
> charts in the Lycoming Operator's Manual, some power charts show a
> dashed line which is the maximum allowable manifold pressure for
> continuous operations at a given RPM (e.g. O-360-A, IO-360-A, and
> IO-360-B series engines). Other engines don't have such a limitation.
>
> For the IO-360-A series engines, Lycoming allows full throttle at
> 2400 rpm or higher. At 2300 rpm they recommend a max MP of 29
> inches HG. The allowable MP drops with rpm to 25 " HG at 1800
> rpm. So, oversquare operation is OK, within limits. So it still
> makes sense to increase the rpm before increasing the MP, and to
> reduce the MP before reducing the rpm.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> On 11 Jul 2006, at 11:22, D.Bristol wrote:
>
>> It's interesting to note that Lycoming (in the second link) says
>> that running oversquare is no problem but in the first link they say:
>> <>TO INCREASE POWER - first, enrich mixture, increase RPM, then
>> follow with throttle.
>> <>TO DECREASE POWER - first, reduce throttle, reduce RPM, and then
>> adjust mixture.
>> <>
>> Be nice if they got their stories straight.
>>
>> Dave
>> <><>
>> do not archive
>>
>> RV6 Flyer wrote:
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is what Lycoming has to say:
>>> http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/
>>> publications/keyReprints/operation/basicPowerSequence.html
>>>
>>> http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/
>>> publications/keyReprints/operation/powerSettings.html
>>>
>>> http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/
>>> publications/keyReprints/operation/lowPowerLowRPM.html
>>>
>>> http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/
>>> publications/keyReprints/operation/oldWivesTales.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary A. Sobek
>>> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
>>> 1,892 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
>>> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----Original Message Follows----
>>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "bob rundle" <bobrundle2@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> Can someone explain how to fly a constant speed prop? I can't
>>> seem to find much info in the wealth of flying books I have
>>> here. Any recommended books?
>>>
>>> So far I've read:
>>> To reduce power: Set throttle to desired RPM. See prop to MP,
>>> RPM will remain constant.
>>> To increase power: Set prop to fine. Increase throttle/RPM.
>>>
>>> Correct? Else?
>>>
>
>
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: Aerobatics and gyro's |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6@comcast.net>
Then why did they make gyros that were cageable?
In my experience; 2 gyros went bad in 150 hours with monthly aerobatics.
Then I installed 2 valves to allow vacuum flow switchable direct to filter,
bypassing gyros. No problem so far 500 hours later with weekly aerobatics. I
do use the gyros monthly for IFR practice too keep myself and gyros
lubricated. I never liked seeing my instruments banging quite hard on each
spill. BTW, hope they don't rotate boxes during shipping ;)
Dale
RV6A 650hrs
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:41 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mitchell Faatz <mitch@skybound.com>
>
> Incorrect. Our EAA chapter just had a presentation from an avionics and
> major gyro rebuilding shop. I asked specifically about aerobatics and
> gyros, they said "No problem whatsoever, UNLESS you do something silly
> like remove the vacuum". They know the internals of gyros intimately, and
> said there are stops for the gimbals and it does them no harm at all to go
> to the stops for loops, rolls, etc. I know there are many wives tales and
> hunches out there, but these guys have serious experience with gyros.
>
> Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit (no, really) Auburn, CA
>
>
> Dan Beadle wrote:
>>
>> I believe that this is a good solution. As long as they are not
>> spinning, there is little stress on the bearings.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Garrett, Randy
>> L Dr HQ INSCOM
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
>> *To:* rv-list-digest@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RV-List: Aerobatics and gyro's
>>
>>
>>
>> I am planning to begin aerobatics in my RV-6A (and will go through the
>> proper paperwork process to add aerobatic manuevers to my flight
>> limitations).
>>
>> I have a vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyro and an electrical
>> turn coordinator.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is no simple way to quickly remove any of these
>> instruments.
>>
>> A potentially clever alternative ...
>>
>> I could easily adjust the vacuum so that the AH and DG do not run at all
>> (that is, there's zero air flowing though the instruments) and pull the
>> circuit breaker so that the turn coordinator is also off.
>>
>> But, I don't know if this would be better or worse for the gyros to not
>> be spinning when they have G and centrifical forces applied to them.
>> Also, would there be a problem for the vacuum pump to be running, but
>> presumably not having any air flowing through it?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Randy Garrett
>> RV-6A
>> 675 hours
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: Aerobatics and gyro's |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
I don't believe that cage able is the same as just unhooking the vacuum
ot electrical source. I have vacuum RC Allen vacuum gyro AH and DG and
no problems
in the 800 hours I have had them installed. I do mild aerobatics regularly.
Jerry
Dale Walter wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6@comcast.net>
>
> Then why did they make gyros that were cageable?
> In my experience; 2 gyros went bad in 150 hours with monthly
> aerobatics. Then I installed 2 valves to allow vacuum flow switchable
> direct to filter, bypassing gyros. No problem so far 500 hours later
> with weekly aerobatics. I do use the gyros monthly for IFR practice
> too keep myself and gyros lubricated. I never liked seeing my
> instruments banging quite hard on each spill. BTW, hope they don't
> rotate boxes during shipping ;)
> Dale
> RV6A 650hrs
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:41 AM
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Mitchell Faatz <mitch@skybound.com>
>>
>> Incorrect. Our EAA chapter just had a presentation from an avionics
>> and major gyro rebuilding shop. I asked specifically about
>> aerobatics and gyros, they said "No problem whatsoever, UNLESS you do
>> something silly like remove the vacuum". They know the internals of
>> gyros intimately, and said there are stops for the gimbals and it
>> does them no harm at all to go to the stops for loops, rolls, etc. I
>> know there are many wives tales and hunches out there, but these guys
>> have serious experience with gyros.
>>
>> Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit (no, really) Auburn, CA
>>
>>
>> Dan Beadle wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I believe that this is a good solution. As long as they are not
>>> spinning, there is little stress on the bearings.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Garrett,
>>> Randy L Dr HQ INSCOM
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
>>> *To:* rv-list-digest@matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* RV-List: Aerobatics and gyro's
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am planning to begin aerobatics in my RV-6A (and will go through
>>> the proper paperwork process to add aerobatic manuevers to my flight
>>> limitations).
>>>
>>> I have a vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyro and an
>>> electrical turn coordinator.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there is no simple way to quickly remove any of these
>>> instruments.
>>>
>>> A potentially clever alternative ...
>>>
>>> I could easily adjust the vacuum so that the AH and DG do not run at
>>> all (that is, there's zero air flowing though the instruments) and
>>> pull the circuit breaker so that the turn coordinator is also off.
>>>
>>> But, I don't know if this would be better or worse for the gyros to
>>> not be spinning when they have G and centrifical forces applied to
>>> them. Also, would there be a problem for the vacuum pump to be
>>> running, but presumably not having any air flowing through it?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Randy Garrett
>>> RV-6A
>>> 675 hours
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: | FW: powder coating panel - how big holes? |
Hi -
I'm getting ready to put a new panel in my 6a and plan to powder coat the
panel after it has been cut. Does anyone have any suggestions about how
much bigger we should cut holes to accommodate powder coating? How thick is
it?
Thanks,
Parker
____________________________________
F. Parker Thomas
ShredFirst
phone 510-433-0200
fax 510-217-5976
parker@shredfirst.biz
www.shredfirst.biz
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: exhaust bolt torque |
Tom,
I remember this coming up before, but not with the exhaust bolts. The
torque tables for the airframe do not apply to the engine! I personally think
that the low torque values used for the airframe have to do with clamping
aluminum and not crushing it. The AN bolts are good for probably twice the torque
in the airframe tables. (IMHO -- please don't hold me to that last
statement!)
do not archive
Dan Hopper
RV-7A and longtime shade tree mechanic
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> I was going to torque down the nuts on the exhaust studs on my O-360 when
> I noticed a contradiction between my torque tables and Larry Vetterman's
> instructions. Larry says to torque the nuts to 100- 140 in-lb. That's
> the torque value for a 5/16-24 bolt, according to my table. But the
> exhaust studs in my engine are 5/16-18. The torque table says to use
> 80-90 in-lb for the coarse thread 5/16 bolts.
> What's the right torque value here?
>
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
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: FW: powder coating panel - how big holes? |
--> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 7/12/06 8:31:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
me@parkerthomas.com writes:
> I'm getting ready to put a new panel in my 6a and plan to powder coat the
> panel after it has been cut. Does anyone have any suggestions about how
> much bigger we should cut holes to accommodate powder coating? How thick
is
> it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Parker
============================================
Parker:
All according to what material they use for powder coating the thickness can
vary from .005 to .015" So, if you are looking for a depth to work with, I
would use .015" deeper. The worse condition would be the flat head screws would
sit below the panel face by .010"
If you coat thinner you might as well paint and save the cost and time.
The other option is to get a 100 Deg countersink and just do a slight hand
ream with the countersink. Just make sure it is 100 Deg ... As you probably
know aircraft screws are 100 Deg.
The other option is to use Pan Head or Philister Head Screws and just have
the screw holes a straight hole. Use the above heads and a thin washer for
looks. You can have the mounting hardware painted in a flat color to match or to
contrast. I happen to like Dark colors for the panel - Black or Blue, it helps
to cut down on glare. I fly an RV-6 & RV-6A they have light color panels and
glare at night is a problem. The canopy just reflects the light like a
parabola.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: | Instruments for Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Seiders <seiders@bellsouth.net>
Have ad on Barnstormers for following :
Navaid head $400 good operating
Terra 760D com $400 good operating
Terra 200d nav $750 (needs some work as LOC ok, GS not indicating)
Terra Tri Nav C digital vor/loc/gs good operating $400
Will sell as combinations and discount p[rices.
e mail seiders@bellsouth.net or call 770 377 8342 if int.
Dick
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) |
Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units. That's
from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this book.) Most car
engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same
reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore were
the size of a car engine's.
Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the low
compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use low octane gas.
Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
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) |
Dan
Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is the date of
publication of this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?
Charlie Kuss
>
>
>Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's
>bore is increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10
>units. That's from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and
>Practice -- Volume II." by Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for
>recommending this book.) Most car engine's bores are well under 4"
>and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same reference, our 8.7:1
>compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore were the
>size of a car engine's.
>
>Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the
>low compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use
>low octane gas. Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
>
>Dan Hopper
>RV-7A
>
>
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: "you're gonna die because you use autogas" |
>From: SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic@sbcglobal.net>
>There seems to be an attitude especially decidedly
>anti-mogas. It would appear to be an elitist sort of thing.
>I've flown with plenty of "holier than thou types" who
>disdain mogas (but have absolutely no experience with it).
There has been an abundance of sarcastic condescending
attitude, as apparent from you post's title. It's a waste of
time in a constructive dialog or discourse.
You have your story wrong. I even said I'd consider
MOgas with a LOW compression engine and proper
protection against vapor lock. Provided I could readily
get good MOgas.
MOgas has been at the scene of the accident, some fatal
a few times. Sorry if that upsets you. Even Glasair in their
hey day recognized it and switched to selling Lycs for their
kits with fuel pump cooling shrouds. WHY? Even AVgas
can vapor lock. The first of their tight cowl hi-perf kits
suffered vapor lock.
BTW If any one wants a mechanical fuel pump cooling
shroud, here is a source. (see products, last item)
http://www.showplanes.com/index_1024.htm
Scott apparently the way you deal with important safety
info is name calling. So if you don't like what you hear you
want to shut them up by insulting them. Nice move.
My way is to educate people and give them the information
to make good decisions and mitigate or minimize the risk.
I suggest people get the full scoop and know the negatives
as well as the positive, cost savings. There was and still is
decidedly one side dialog going on. I made my point for the
good presenting the other side. Too bad if you don't like it.
For some reason if someone has a different view the
procedure is to attack the person and make personal
comments. Sad. There is no room for emotion and denial
in aviation safety. Deal with it.
You quote Bob as an example and say SEE! Bob is some
one who is very careful and a model for others planning
auto fuel. Never once did I say MOgas operations can not
or never be done safely, BUT it does take great and extra
care.
I don't care what you do, but I sure would hate another
RV'er to crash and say, hey I did not understand vapor
lock or octane. No else mentioned it, so I did.
Scott it's not disdain for your beloved MOgas, just a
cautious approach, that's all. Excuse me for having
an opinion that's different than yours. Have a nice day.
Cheers Captain AVgas,
give me 100/100LL or give me death. (sarcasm)
---------------------------------
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics and gyro's |
In a message dated 7/12/2006 4:24:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dale1rv6@comcast.net writes:
Then why did they make gyros that were cageable?
===============================
I thought it was so that you could re-erect the gyro once you got straight
and level after completing your aerobatic maneuvers.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 801hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: Aerobatics and gyro's |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mitchell Faatz <mitch@skybound.com>
They are cageable to get back to proper indications as soon as possible
after aerobatics.
From Sigma-Tek: "The unique cageable attitude provides for quick
erection and display alignment; a high priority for aerobatic aircraft
owners and for aircraft operations that require short stops." The
caging mechanism simple gets the gyro to "close to level" as quickly as
possible, instead of waiting for the righting mechanisms and erecting
vanes to work.
To expand on this, here is more text from Sigma-Tek: "Short stops
(engine off less than 12 minutes) and some aerobatic maneuvers may cause
your attitude gyro to tumble or precess from its vertical reference.
When the rotor is spinning, the gyros normal erection system is slow and
can take several minutes to correct a large erection error. This
non-locking caging feature allows the pilot to quickly align the gyro
display and rotor to gyro case reference. The attitude gyro should only
be caged for quick alignment during straight and level VFR flight using
well defined earth horizon for reference or prior to take off"
As far as you having better luck after removing vacuum, I'm guessing the
new gyros are just better ;)
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
Dale Walter wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6@comcast.net>
>
> Then why did they make gyros that were cageable?
> In my experience; 2 gyros went bad in 150 hours with monthly
> aerobatics. Then I installed 2 valves to allow vacuum flow switchable
> direct to filter, bypassing gyros. No problem so far 500 hours later
> with weekly aerobatics. I do use the gyros monthly for IFR practice
> too keep myself and gyros lubricated. I never liked seeing my
> instruments banging quite hard on each spill. BTW, hope they don't
> rotate boxes during shipping ;)
> Dale
> RV6A 650hrs
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:41 AM
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Mitchell Faatz <mitch@skybound.com>
>>
>> Incorrect. Our EAA chapter just had a presentation from an avionics
>> and major gyro rebuilding shop. I asked specifically about
>> aerobatics and gyros, they said "No problem whatsoever, UNLESS you do
>> something silly like remove the vacuum". They know the internals of
>> gyros intimately, and said there are stops for the gimbals and it
>> does them no harm at all to go to the stops for loops, rolls, etc. I
>> know there are many wives tales and hunches out there, but these guys
>> have serious experience with gyros.
>>
>> Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit (no, really) Auburn, CA
>>
>>
>> Dan Beadle wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that this is a good solution. As long as they are not
>>> spinning, there is little stress on the bearings.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Garrett,
>>> Randy L Dr HQ INSCOM
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
>>> *To:* rv-list-digest@matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* RV-List: Aerobatics and gyro's
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am planning to begin aerobatics in my RV-6A (and will go through
>>> the proper paperwork process to add aerobatic manuevers to my flight
>>> limitations).
>>>
>>> I have a vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyro and an
>>> electrical turn coordinator.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there is no simple way to quickly remove any of these
>>> instruments.
>>>
>>> A potentially clever alternative ...
>>>
>>> I could easily adjust the vacuum so that the AH and DG do not run at
>>> all (that is, there's zero air flowing though the instruments) and
>>> pull the circuit breaker so that the turn coordinator is also off.
>>>
>>> But, I don't know if this would be better or worse for the gyros to
>>> not be spinning when they have G and centrifical forces applied to
>>> them. Also, would there be a problem for the vacuum pump to be
>>> running, but presumably not having any air flowing through it?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Randy Garrett
>>> RV-6A
>>> 675 hours
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: | New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to work
well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or staying
open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower cowl
to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone pulls
on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Charlie,
"The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
Charles Taylor was published in 1968 by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. I found a copy on Ebay.
Dan
In a message dated 7/12/2006 10:41:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
chaztuna@adelphia.net writes:
Dan
Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is the date of publication of
this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?
Charlie Kuss
Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units. That's
from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this book.) Most car
engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same
reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore were
the size of a car engine's.
Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the low
compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use low octane gas.
Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
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: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
I am not familiar with the layout of version # 2.0, but how about
incorporating a spring-load to help to put it back to the shut position?
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Watson
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: RV-List: New F.A.B. alternate air intake
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one
with
the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going
to work
well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
staying
open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then
Van's
came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening
in
the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I
installed
that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts
still
mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the
lower cowl
to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency
air
source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
pulls
on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/12/2006
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
> increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units.
Dan:
This is a rule of thumb that is meant to compare similarly designed engines of
different displacements, such as the O-320 and O-360. It would be a mistake to
apply it to significantly different engine designs without taking into
consideration other factors. For example, combustion chamber shape is equally
significant, so that a smaller-bore combustion chamber can require higher
octane than a larger-bore chamber, at the same CR, if its shape is more
conducive to detonation. One can't simply conclude that one engine requires
higher octane than another simply because its bore is larger.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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 (very long) |
Also available from amazon.com
-------------- Original message ----------------------
>
>
> Charlie,
>
> "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
> Charles Taylor was published in 1968 by the Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology. I found a copy on Ebay.
>
> Dan
>
>
> In a message dated 7/12/2006 10:41:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> chaztuna@adelphia.net writes:
>
> Dan
> Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is the date of publication of
> this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
> increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units. That's
> from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
> Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this book.) Most car
> engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same
> reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore
> were
> the size of a car engine's.
>
> Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the low
> compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use low octane gas.
> Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
>
> Dan Hopper
> RV-7A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19207_1152723451_1"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19207_1152723451_1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=rol
e_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Charlie,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." b
y
Charles Taylor was published in 1968 by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. I found a copy on Ebay.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dan</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 7/12/2006 10:41:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
chaztuna@adelphia.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><
FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size
=2><FONT
size=3>Dan<BR> Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is th
e date
of publication of this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?<BR>Charlie
Kuss<BR><BR><BR></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT size=2><BR>
<BR>Here
is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore
is
increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units. 
;
That's from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Vo
lume
II." by Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this
book.) Most car engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 i
s 5
1/8". From the same reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks l
ike
more than 10:1 if the bore were the size of a car
engine's.<BR> <BR>Those using auto gas should keep this in mind whe
n
thinking that the low compression ratios of aircraft engines should allo
w us
to use low octane gas. Your engine may be closer to detonation tha
n
you realize.<BR> <BR>Dan
Hopper<BR>RV-7A<BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT>
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19207_1152723451_1--
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: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
Terry, I did not like version 2.0 either so I scrapped the magnet and the
magnet holder of version 1.0, and potted three smaller magnets on the
outside of the FAB with 3M DP-190 epoxy. It takes a bit more force to get
it open now. I put some dychem machinists ink on the throat of the
carburetor as an indicator to show if the door was opening in flight and
contacting the carb and so far it hasn't. I absolutely will not put
anything mechanical in the path of non-filtered air that could come loose
and get sucked into the engine. The airbox really takes a beating from
vibration.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
On 7/12/06, Terry Watson <terry@tcwatson.com> wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
>
>
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: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
You can't reach in through the exhaust opening in the lower cowl?
I glassed my version 1.0 door shut; and close the carb heat door/alt air
door at first indication of precip/birds/meteors.
--
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Terry Watson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
>
>
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: How to fly Constant Speed? |
An interesting discussion. Strong statements related to the engine. And
the propeller seems to be ignored.
Certified aircraft have POH power settings directly related to the engine
/propeller combination installed on that aircraft. Unfortunately, the POH power
settings for an RV would be much more difficult to establish, because of all
of the different engine/propeller combinations used.
Just an aside. The engine may provide more horsepower with an increase in
RPM, but the propeller requires more horsepower to turn at a given airspeed
with an increase in RPM.
Empirically, in cruise at full throttle at 7,500', the 72" diameter CS
propeller on a Lycoming O-360 engine requires more horsepower than the engine
produces when the RPM is increased from 2600 to 2700. This results in a slight
decrease in airspeed.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
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: | MAC servo supplier |
Hi,
Can anyone help with the contact details for Menzimer Aircraft Components
Inc... I have a old address for Vista CA....but no reply from the phone
number I got... Have they gone out of business or has the business been
sold..changed owner... ??
Regards
Jan
<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;
charset=US-ASCII">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple id="role_body"
bottomMargin=7
leftmargin=7 topmargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<div class=Section1>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></
span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p
></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Can anyone help
with the
contact details for Menzimer Aircraft Components Inc… I have a
old
address for <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City
w:st="on">Vista</st1:City> <st1:State
w:st="on">CA</st1:State></st1:place>….but no reply from the
phone number
I got… Have they gone out of business or has the business been
sold..changed owner… ??<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p
></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Regards<o:p></o:
p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p
></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Jan<o:p></o:p></
span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
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: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Here is my take on the FAB alternate air intake. The FAB was first
introduced without any regard to alternate air intake. Someone, or perhaps
several had a problem with ice on the carb filter as I understand it due to
flying into icing conditions, ie, freezing rain, or snow and the carb heat
activated after the fact did not melt the ice because the warmed air could
not flow to melt the ice. The pop up door remedied this problem but on some
large engines like the 360 it could open due to the amount of vacuum created
during high power settings such as during take off in perhaps dusty
conditions. That could affect engine longevity because unfiltered air was
getting into the engine. So the pop up door was replaced with a manual door
that the pilot had to activate with a pull lever. The carb heat feature can
close off all freezing moisture if activated before the air filter
completely freezes, thereby cutting off all air movement through the filter.
The new manually activated door allows unfiltered air into the carb when
done can get through the filter.
I don't think there is any problem with the FAB without an alternate air
solution IF the carb heat is utilized before the air filter freezes over
solid. So if the pilot recognizes the possibility of snow or freezing rain
situation and pulls carb heat before air flow is totally cut off, there
should not be a reason to activate the new manual alternate air solution as
the heated air from carb heat will melt the ice on the filter.
Based on this understanding, I removed the pop up door to save my engine
from possible harm and glassed over it and did not install the sliding door
solution. Aside from not activating carb heat in time, the one situation
that the manual alternate air system will help on is if a plastic bag, or
bird, or something is ingested in the air input that cuts off air to the
carb. I don't know but the vacuum pressure could be strong enough to burst
a bag and it might not be a problem without the alternate air. I liked the
pop up door before I learned of its weakness. I am surprised Vans did not
just strengthen the door so it could not accidentally deploy. Someone
suggested adding stronger magnets. I think that is a better solution.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
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: How to fly Constant Speed? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "low pass" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Lots of detail above. Two VERY GENERAL sequences of operation used to operate
a CS prop/engine combo:
Enrich the mixture, increase prop rpm, increase power (throttle).
Decrease power (throttle), decrease rpm, lean the mixture.
The specific numbers will vary with engine, prop, AC, etc. There are also lots
of variations to these general sequences.
Search for contollable pitch propeller (FAA lingo). Try the FAA document, Airplane
Flying Handbook.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-5of7.pdf
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46751#46751
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: | New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Thanks Indiana Larry. That all makes good sense, but I have fuel injection
and therefore no carb heat door. A carb heat door would solve part of the
problem -- if a bird or big snowball got stuck in the intake ahead of the
carb heat inlet -- but the alternate air door is intended to also let air
into the engine if the filter gets covered with ice, as I understand it. So
a carb heat door, even with a fuel injection system, would solve half of the
problem, or handle some but not all of the anticipated possible air inlet
blockages.
And thanks North Carolina Larry. Because I have a nosewheel, I don't think I
could reach up in there to close the door properly, but I would sure give it
a try before I removed the lower cowl.
I think I can live with what I have, but I am still hoping someone has come
up with an idea that makes this door work as intended. I have been thinking
about getting a control cable with a T-handle and push-button to discourage
me from pulling the wrong knob, but my history warns me that might not stop
me.
Thanks,
Terry
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Here is my take on the FAB alternate air intake. The FAB was first
introduced without any regard to alternate air intake. Someone, or perhaps
several had a problem with ice on the carb filter as I understand it due to
flying into icing conditions, ie, freezing rain, or snow and the carb heat
activated after the fact did not melt the ice because the warmed air could
not flow to melt the ice. The pop up door remedied this problem but on some
large engines like the 360 it could open due to the amount of vacuum created
during high power settings such as during take off in perhaps dusty
conditions. That could affect engine longevity because unfiltered air was
getting into the engine. So the pop up door was replaced with a manual door
that the pilot had to activate with a pull lever. The carb heat feature can
close off all freezing moisture if activated before the air filter
completely freezes, thereby cutting off all air movement through the filter.
The new manually activated door allows unfiltered air into the carb when
done can get through the filter.
I don't think there is any problem with the FAB without an alternate air
solution IF the carb heat is utilized before the air filter freezes over
solid. So if the pilot recognizes the possibility of snow or freezing rain
situation and pulls carb heat before air flow is totally cut off, there
should not be a reason to activate the new manual alternate air solution as
the heated air from carb heat will melt the ice on the filter.
Based on this understanding, I removed the pop up door to save my engine
from possible harm and glassed over it and did not install the sliding door
solution. Aside from not activating carb heat in time, the one situation
that the manual alternate air system will help on is if a plastic bag, or
bird, or something is ingested in the air input that cuts off air to the
carb. I don't know but the vacuum pressure could be strong enough to burst
a bag and it might not be a problem without the alternate air. I liked the
pop up door before I learned of its weakness. I am surprised Vans did not
just strengthen the door so it could not accidentally deploy. Someone
suggested adding stronger magnets. I think that is a better solution.
Indiana Larry
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Ted,
Yes, lots of things determine the octane required. Combustion chamber shape
is certainly one which is very significant. In fact the open chamber like
our Lycomings, in general, are the least resistant to detonation according to
this book.
All other things being equal, it IS fair to say that a larger bore engine
requires higher octane fuel. This is not a rule of thumb, but was determined
by a lot of testing. There are many graphs in this book which show the data
from these tests. The book admits that there was (is?) still much to learn
about the causes and cures of detonation. I'm not sure how much we've learned
since then, but I think anything written in 1968 still applies to Lycomings!
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 7/12/2006 12:58:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tedd@vansairforce.org writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
> increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units.
Dan:
This is a rule of thumb that is meant to compare similarly designed engines
of
different displacements, such as the O-320 and O-360. It would be a mistake
to
apply it to significantly different engine designs without taking into
consideration other factors. For example, combustion chamber shape is
equally
significant, so that a smaller-bore combustion chamber can require higher
octane than a larger-bore chamber, at the same CR, if its shape is more
conducive to detonation. One can't simply conclude that one engine requires
higher octane than another simply because its bore is larger.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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: MAC servo supplier |
Jan,
Ray Allan purchased the company. MAC is now RAC. Go to:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
Charlie Kuss
>Hi,
>
>Can anyone help with the contact details for
>Menzimer Aircraft Components Inc=85 I have a old
>address for Vista CA=85.but no reply from the
>phone number I got=85 Have they gone out of
>business or has the business been sold..changed owner=85 ??
>
>Regards
>
>Jan
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: MAC servo supplier |
Try this:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/
Jan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Can anyone help with the contact details for Menzimer Aircraft
> Components Inc... I have a old address for Vista CA....but no reply
> from the phone number I got... Have they gone out of business or has
> the business been sold..changed owner... ??
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jan
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
One thing to think about. Many RV's don't have enough temperature rise
with carb heat to do much good. That little tube with the bite out of it
that Van's sells is about useless. Deploying carb heat in a timely
manner in snow might not do enough and you might still wind up with
filter blockage. Even if you have to manually reset it after use,
alternate air might save the day sometime.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:18 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
<lhelming@sigecom.net>
I don't think there is any problem with the FAB without an alternate air
solution IF the carb heat is utilized before the air filter freezes over
solid. So if the pilot recognizes the possibility of snow or freezing
rain
situation and pulls carb heat before air flow is totally cut off, there
should not be a reason to activate the new manual alternate air solution
as
the heated air from carb heat will melt the ice on the filter.
Based on this understanding, I removed the pop up door to save my engine
from possible harm and glassed over it and did not install the sliding
door
solution. Aside from not activating carb heat in time, the one
situation
that the manual alternate air system will help on is if a plastic bag,
or
bird, or something is ingested in the air input that cuts off air to the
carb. I don't know but the vacuum pressure could be strong enough to
burst
a bag and it might not be a problem without the alternate air. I liked
the
pop up door before I learned of its weakness. I am surprised Vans did
not
just strengthen the door so it could not accidentally deploy. Someone
suggested adding stronger magnets. I think that is a better solution.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one
with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going
to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then
Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening
in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I
installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts
still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the
lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency
air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
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: | How to fly Constant Speed? |
It reads whatever the current pressure setting is. If it's 30.25, then MP
reads 30.25 (at sea level). During takeoff, some slight ram pressure
develops (my cowl to airbox seal is very tight) generating maybe 30.50". I
actually meant to say I get 30", but on occasion when ambient pressure is
high, it comes mighty close to 31".
Ed Bundy
What does your MP read when the engine is stopped on the ground? 31"
sounds like a MP gauge that is reading high.
Kevin Horton
do not archive
On 11 Jul 2006, at 20:54, Ed Bundy wrote:
Oversquare operation has been pretty much de-bunked as an old wives
tale. Most POH's show available operations well into oversquare territory.
My fixed-pitch prop RV operates oversquare on pretty much every takeoff. I
have MAP in mine and at sea level I show 31" at 2200 rpm on takeoff. I
usually pull back to 25" on climb (RPM approx 2300) and keep bumping the
power back up to 75% as I climb.
If you don't have MAP, then you don't know you're oversquare and it
won't harm the engine. :-)
Ed Bundy
On a sidenote on running oversquare:
How does one with a fixed pitch propeller operating from low altitude
or even sea level deal with said oversquare scenario's?
Isn't that pretty much an oversquare situation right from the get-go
when one applies full take off power?
As a Manifold Pressure Gauge is not required in a fixed pitch
airplane, how would one even know how much oversquare they are during the
takeoff roll?
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: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Terry, I'm flying an RV-10 with the new style FAB door. Also using
F.I. like you are, so I didn't add carb heat or any other options, just
the simple door. If it were me, I'd just leave it as-is. The knob
isn't super easy to pull, and in 90 hours now nobody's touched it.
You could even label it with a warning if you wanted, but considering
that YOU'RE the pilot and will likely be in the plane all the time,
the chance is pretty slim it'll get messed with...and if it does,
how many times do you think it'll happen?? I'd rather remove the
cowl 1 or 2 times over the airplane's lifetime because someone
touched the valve than spend a ton of time trying to change the way
things work. On the -10, I am betting I can reach the FAB from
under the nose anyway.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Terry Watson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Thanks Indiana Larry. That all makes good sense, but I have fuel injection
> and therefore no carb heat door. A carb heat door would solve part of the
> problem -- if a bird or big snowball got stuck in the intake ahead of the
> carb heat inlet -- but the alternate air door is intended to also let air
> into the engine if the filter gets covered with ice, as I understand it. So
> a carb heat door, even with a fuel injection system, would solve half of the
> problem, or handle some but not all of the anticipated possible air inlet
> blockages.
>
> And thanks North Carolina Larry. Because I have a nosewheel, I don't think I
> could reach up in there to close the door properly, but I would sure give it
> a try before I removed the lower cowl.
>
> I think I can live with what I have, but I am still hoping someone has come
> up with an idea that makes this door work as intended. I have been thinking
> about getting a control cable with a T-handle and push-button to discourage
> me from pulling the wrong knob, but my history warns me that might not stop
> me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Terry
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
Terry,
I agree -- its a one shot deal. I couldn't get mine to seal all that well
either, so I put a very small bead of RTV around it. Its there only for a
rare emergency.
One correction though. You can easily close it with only the upper cowl off.
Dan Hopped
RV-7A 200 HP IO-360
In a message dated 7/12/2006 12:21:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
terry@tcwatson.com writes:
But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone pulls
on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu>
On my RV-6A (following involuntary glider training precipitated by snow
in the FAB) I built a somewhat complicated filter bypass that takes the
carb heat air (not hot enough to melt snow) and dumps it in the FAB
AFTER the air filter. See
<http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/RV6_FAB.jpg>
I like Van's alternate air solutions better than what I built for my
-6A, but Van's wasn't available at the time.
For my RV-10 (IO-540) I'm using a hinged alternate air door on the
bottom of the FAB that opens and closes using the push/pull cable,
rather than the "one way" sliding door arrangement. Photo is at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/Alt_air.jpg>. I've not flown the -10
yet.
Tim Lewis
N47TD
Ed Holyoke wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> One thing to think about. Many RV's don't have enough temperature rise
> with carb heat to do much good. That little tube with the bite out of it
> that Van's sells is about useless. Deploying carb heat in a timely
> manner in snow might not do enough and you might still wind up with
> filter blockage. Even if you have to manually reset it after use,
> alternate air might save the day sometime.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
I read the link to vapor lock but didn't read that you can clip clothespins
on the fuel line to prevent vapor lock. Have any of you auto fuel fans tri
ed
that? This is humor.
do not archive please
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 7/10/2006 9:52:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
>From: _Fiveonepw@aol.com_ (mailto:Fiveonepw@aol.com)
>
>C'mon, is this the best you can do? Very informative,
>informative, but wearily long and all of these reports that YOU
>CITED
I made no claim of detailed analysis, I hear you, but....
I'll give you some better examples that spell it out, but...
just because the final determination for the power loss is
unexplained, it does not make me feel good. Fact is several
planes, all using auto fuel, had loss of power along with low
or erratic fuel pressure. Just happens it was also a hot day.
Unexplained loss of power, surging and erratic fuel pressure
on hot days, while using high vapor pressure auto fuel might
mean vapor lock is the cause (I really do think).
VL certainly is a very reasonable explanation since it
matches the symptoms. Just because OJ was not found
guilty does not mean he didn't do it. All the FAA can say
is they can't prove it after the fact, but they out and out
say it below or imply vapor lock often..
I got clever, I searched on Vapor Lock and Automotive
fuel. (69 hits)
Here they say it, out right, RV-9A auto gas and vapor lock
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06LA069&rpt=fa_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06LA069&rpt=fa)
some factory planes (hey if it can happen to them...)
NAVION, any more questions
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001213X30993&key=1_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001213X30993&key=1)
Rockwell Ag plane, FAA says....
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MKC88LA141&rpt=fi_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MKC88LA141&rpt=fi)
Piper PA-20, if that does not do it for Ya
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC89LA118&rpt=fi_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC89LA118&rpt=fi)
(auto fuel has three times the vapor pressure)
Some more experimentals
Pitts Special, auto fuel and vapor lock in narrative text
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI83LA312&rpt=fi_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI83LA312&rpt=fi)
Thorp T-18, Mazda powered, page 1, par 2 and par 4.
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94LA273&rpt=fa_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94LA273&rpt=fa)
D-51S vapor lock, no mention of auto gas, but could be.
The vapor lock symptoms are interesting and common.
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA159&rpt=fi_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA159&rpt=fi)
Velocity - very interesting. engine failure due to auto fuel?
Look at 1st-par on page 1a and 1 st-par on page 1b.
Although an engine failure, the low octane auto gas contributed
to the high compression engines demise. Also before the fatal
flight the builder/pilot had vapor lock problems and installed
additional return line and solenoid. Auto fuel was used.
_http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW98FA165&rpt=fa_
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW98FA165&rpt=fa)
C'mon! You can deny deny deny but it's common knowledge.
So when I say keep the fuel cool any way you can you
see what I mean. I guess I am not that dumb after all.
Sometime the NTSB probable cause for vapor lock is
coded as:
-Improper grade of fuel
-fuel, system line blocked
-fuel, system pump blocked
-fluid, fuel starvation
-fuel system overtemperature
Unexplained does not mean it's not a possibility. I am
just suggesting it's possible, suspect, that auto fuel
contributed to the loss of power. You have to know what
the vapor lock signals are. Heat and low atmospheric
pressure is a recipe for VL.
Here is a link that explains vapor lock.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_lock_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_lock)
>From: linn Walters <_pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net_
(mailto:pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net) >
>Subject: Re: RV-List: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch
>
>I only read a few of the accident reports, and none that I
>read said that Auto fuel CAUSED the accident.
Great point, absolutly true. However when you read so
many unexplained loss of power, high ambient temps
and auto fuel, than you have to say, hummm.
Obviously dirty rusty cans and not filtering the fuel is a
dumb pilot trick. However when you handle fuel and buy
car gas, the risk of getting bad gas increases, logically.
I did not list several NTSB reports of in-flight engine failures
due to valve damage. Now that could be due to detonation.
We know a prime cause of detonation is low octane. Auto
gas has lower octane.
What scares me the most (and I found a few more since
yesterday) are the takeoff or cruise unexplained loss
of power, typically on hot days. That's scary and suggests
vapor lock.
May be I am not as big an idiot for suggesting that if you
plan on using auto gas in your tightly cowled RV, you do
everything you can to keep the fuel cool: hose insulation,
heat shields, blast tubes and vapor return line. The
mechanical pump is the biggest offender of heat into the
fuel. They make shields and blast tubes for them. Also
ceramic coated (in and out) exhaust is helpful. It might be
a good idea even if you use AVfuel.
If you plan on AVgas than less worries, it's without dispute
AVgas is far more resistant to vapor lock and engine
detonation with higher octane.
That has been my main point. AVgas give you more
margin to detonation and vapor lock. Also quality control
of getting the fuel into the plane direct from an airfield
pump or fuel truck is more higher or more secure. Clearly
from 250 accidents, many involving poor fuel handing
getting fuel into your plane, with gas cans, can cause
contamination.
Last, I don't think you can look at 250 accidents, almost
all involving inflight loss of power, all w/ auto fuel on board,
and not draw a conclusion? hummmmm, there is some
increased risk. What can I learn from these NTSB reports,
STC's, FAA, EAA and AOPA. Just like the TV public
service Ads, You Ought-A Know.
> "Jim Sears" <_jmsears@adelphia.net_ (mailto:jmsears@adelphia.net) >
> Since George has taken offense to our discussion,
>I think it best to stop this discussion, now.
I have been researching auto fuel for 20 years,
since the late 80's. I just don't favor it for high
compression engines and tightly cowled RV's.
it's just my opinion. Sue me. :-)
Besides reading a lot on the topic, as a CFI, I taught a
group of pilots who owned a C-182 with a STC for auto
fuel years ago. They stopped using it for several reasons.
This is not like I just thought of this yesterday. I have
followed this from the start.
You present one side of the story, and just think
another opinon was needed to this discourse.
Jim has been 20 years flying with auto fuel.
That is a good data point. I respect that.
I recall Jim flys a low compression 150 HP Grumman
Cheetah. I am going to submit the temps in the cowl
of the AA-5 are less than a RV. Also with the lower
temps and lower octane requirement of the 150 HP,
O320, the Grumman makes a good candidate for
auto fuel and better than a high compression RV.
I do not believe Jim is flying his RV yet, so not sure he
can claim auto gas RV experience, but I could be wrong.
Forgive me if I am wrong.
There are planes like the Mooney that suffer vapor lock
with auto fuel and thus can not get a STC. It is not a
stretch of logic to assume that the same issues might
face the RV.
I am NOT anti-Autogas. However I do think it is better
suited for low compression engines (80/86 octane)
and planes with big cowls and exhaust pipes that don't
run inches from the carburetor, fuel lines and gascolator.
THAT IS ALL FOLKS.
Captain AVgas over and out, ha ha ha Cheers, George
____________________________________
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. _Great rates
starting at 1=A2/min._
(http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/ev
t=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com)
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
I have a '40 Ford coupe with a flathead V8 and 3 wodden clothespins on the
fuel line to the carb. IT WORKS.
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve <mark@macomb.com>
Dan, I have indeed heard of clipping clothes pins on the fuel line to
prevent vapor lock. My friends attached the clothes pins and they didn't
get vapor lock as they drove across Nevada in July. This must be proof
that it works.
I have never had a problem with vapor lock in my automobile. Diesels
seem have some sort of immunity to this problem.
Mark
Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:
>
> I read the link to vapor lock but didn't read that you can clip
> clothespins on the fuel line to prevent vapor lock. Have any of you
> auto fuel fans tried that? This is humor.
>
> do not archive please
>
> Dan Hopper
> RV-7A
>
>
>
--
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! --
|