Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:34 AM - Re: Vaporlock for Fuel Injected Engines (Larry Sallee)
2. 04:38 AM - Re: RV Safety record (linn Walters)
3. 04:50 AM - Re: Vaporlock for Fuel Injected Engines (Charles Kuss)
4. 06:20 AM - Re: Vaporlock for Fuel Injected Engines (Kevin Horton)
5. 08:13 AM - Aircraft Beacon - LED (James H Nelson)
6. 10:32 AM - Re: Sun-n-Fun 08' been there done that :-) (Bobby Hester)
7. 04:32 PM - Re: RV Safety record (Richard Sipp)
8. 07:32 PM - Hi: (bert murillo)
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: Vaporlock for Fuel Injected Engines |
Hot start solution: Eggenfellner Subaru
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Bob <panamared5@brier.net> wrote:
>
>
> I don't have enough experience to understand why injected engines have
> > so much trouble when starting hot.
> >
>
> In my IO-360 there are stainless steel fuel lines running from the fuel
> distribution spider on top of the engine to each cylinder. When the
> aircraft is on the ground the residual engine heat is absorbed by the fuel
> in the stainless steel lines and will vaporize.
>
> There are varied and numerous solutions to this problem some that may work
> for you:
> 1. Install a Purge Valve
> 2. Use hot starting procedures as outlined in the Lycoming engine manual
> 3. Reduce injector nozzle size to increase the fuel pressure in the lines
> 4. Keep the high pressure boost pump on during while engine is running
> and you are still on the ground
> 5. Take the top cowl off and let everything cool off
> 6. Park aircraft into the wind, open oil dipstick door
> 7. Install cooling louvers on the top cowl that only open when the
> aircraft is not moving
> 8. Probably some others solutions as well
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
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: RV Safety record |
I got it both times ..... and it's really interesting . RVs have more
entries in one half of the categories (6 out of 12) and RVs have none in
the maintenance categories!!!! However, the accident rate for stupid
pilot tricks is far too high, no matter what we fly. We really need to
do better.
Linn
Jerry Springer wrote:
> Just curious if anyone received this pdf file I posted a while back to
> the list from Ron Wanttaja?
> All the talk of RV safety and not one comment on his research
> comparing RV's to other homebuilt
> safety. Maybe pdf files do not come through or maybe no one can open it.
> Let me know.
> Jerry Springer
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:24:42 -0700, Jerry Springer wrote
>
>>> Can can I post this on the RV-List?
>>> There is a discussion going on there about how to make the RV flying
>>> community safer and how to compare RV accidents to the rest of the
>>> homebuilt accident rates. Someone ask how to break the RVs apart
>>> from the rest of the homebuilt accident statistics. I would like to
>>> point people
>>> to your article or maybe you could help us out some way with RV
>>> accident
>>> statistics.
>>
>>
> > Jerry
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I give talks to the local EAA chapters that go further than the articles.
> Attached is a page from my presentation where I discuss RV accident
> causes and
> compare them to the overall statistics. The data is based on
> accidents from
> 1998 through 2004, inclusive.
>
> "General Pilot Error" is basically mistakes in the stick-and-rudder
> skills;
> "SALA" stands for "Stupidity at Low Altitude," buzzing, flying up box
> canyons,
> etc. In my presentations, I use a red star to call attention to
> interesting
> results, such as the RV's higher rate in what I call 'cross-country'
> accidents.
>
> The lower rate of pilot error accidents may well be due to the higher
> general
> experience level of RV pilots, as shown by the median pilot hours.
>
> During the subject period the annual fleet accident rate for all
> homebuilts was
> about 0.94% (e.g., almost one out of every 100 homebuilts crashes in a
> given
> year) and the RV fleet accident rate was almost identical (0.90%). In
> contrast,
> the Glasair rate was 1.11%, The overall rate for all N-numbered
> aircraft was
> 0.63%, so homebuilts have a rate about 50% higher than the overall fleet.
>
> I'm currently adding 2005 and 2006 data to my database, and will be
> updating the
> graphs accordingly. Don't expect them to change too much, but you never
> know....
>
> Ron
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: Vaporlock for Fuel Injected Engines |
Hi Mark,
You can do a slightly more "scientific" test by simply watching the results on
your CHT gauges at shutdown and then again, 10 minutes later with the nose into
the wind and in the lee of the wind. Just an idea and worth what you paid for
it.
Charlie Kuss
--- On Fri, 4/18/08, Fiveonepw@aol.com <Fiveonepw@aol.com> wrote:
> From: Fiveonepw@aol.com <Fiveonepw@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Vaporlock for Fuel Injected Engines
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Friday, April 18, 2008, 10:53 PM
> Park aircraft into the wind, open oil dipstick door
>
> >>>
>
> OK- my meager understanding of physics just screams at me
> to challenge this
> one, even though it's been pounded into our collective
> conscience ever since
> the invention of the cowling. Twenty+ Kt wind? Maybe. But
> I am unconvinced that
> the airflow from above/below a just-shut-down engine would
> have any other
> natural tendancy but to RISE through the engine via normal
> convective action.
> Assuming no "wind", air would be greatly
> encouraged to enter the outlet and exit
> the inlets. Buttdraggers would have a rare advantage here.
> (save the venom,
> I gotcha on this one!)
>
> I therefore theorize that positioning most
> conventionally-cooled flying
> machines (most RVs, for example) with their fannies pointed
> INTO the wind would
> benefit from some additonal airflow. Conveniently owning
> one of these devices, I
> happened to be pondering this situation as I dismounted her
> one day after
> some particularly hot activity. First I pointed her into a
> prevailing wind of
> approximately 10Kt velocity and unscientifically measured
> airflow by holding my
> hand just behind the cowl outlet. Not much going on here.
> I then danced a
> one-eighty with her and again unscientifically held my temp
> probe (upper 5-digit
> extremity) in proximity to her nostrils. Whole lotta hot
> stuff coming out
> here. Pretty much convinced me.
>
> I further postulate that opening mentioned oil door would
> short-circuit
> cooling air through the engine itself, actually reducing
> airflow to the
> engine/spider etc., but most likely helping cool fuel lines
> & pumps between firewall and
> baffling.
>
> Ye flying greybeards and physics profs, please explain the
> errors of my
> thinking & experimentation...
>
> >From The PossumWorks in TN
> Mark Phillips, RV-6A "Mojo"
> _http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/_
> (http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/)
>
>
>
> **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site
> for U.S. used car
> listings at AOL Autos.
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vaporlock for Fuel Injected Engines |
On 18 Apr 2008, at 22:53, Fiveonepw@aol.com wrote:
> Park aircraft into the wind, open oil dipstick door
> >>>
>
> OK- my meager understanding of physics just screams at me to
> challenge this one, even though it's been pounded into our
> collective conscience ever since the invention of the cowling.
> Twenty+ Kt wind? Maybe. But I am unconvinced that the airflow from
> above/below a just-shut-down engine would have any other natural
> tendancy but to RISE through the engine via normal convective
> action. Assuming no "wind", air would be greatly encouraged to
> enter the outlet and exit the inlets. Buttdraggers would have a
> rare advantage here. (save the venom, I gotcha on this one!)
>
> I therefore theorize that positioning most conventionally-cooled
> flying machines (most RVs, for example) with their fannies pointed
> INTO the wind would benefit from some additonal airflow.
> Conveniently owning one of these devices, I happened to be
> pondering this situation as I dismounted her one day after some
> particularly hot activity. First I pointed her into a prevailing
> wind of approximately 10Kt velocity and unscientifically measured
> airflow by holding my hand just behind the cowl outlet. Not much
> going on here. I then danced a one-eighty with her and again
> unscientifically held my temp probe (upper 5-digit extremity) in
> proximity to her nostrils. Whole lotta hot stuff coming out here.
> Pretty much convinced me.
>
> I further postulate that opening mentioned oil door would short-
> circuit cooling air through the engine itself, actually reducing
> airflow to the engine/spider etc., but most likely helping cool
> fuel lines & pumps between firewall and baffling.
>
This makes perfect sense to me. Don't fight the laws of physics.
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (FInal Assembly)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
do not archive
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: | Aircraft Beacon - LED |
Ernie,
Are you going to really fly it night time? If so, having the
beacon on the top of the tail will reflect into the canopy. Not a good
thing. If you are really going to fly night, you should go the route of
strobes and running lights on the tips of your wings and tail. That way
you should have no reflections in the office. If you are only going to
do the single light, I think in the belly would be a better place.
Either place will have blind spot. I would recommend LED type running
lights. They require very low power to operate. Just my opinion.
Jim
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: Sun-n-Fun 08' been there done that :-) |
Woops, forgot to give the direct link, scroll down near the bottom:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/2008FlyingAdventures.htm
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my flying RV7A web page:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
Bobby Hester wrote:
>
> My internet service at home is down for a couple more week upgrades,
> so I'm setting in the parking lot at a car wash doing the wireless thing.
>
> I flew to Sun-n-Fun and have finally got some of the pictures and
> story on my web site. I still need to add more, but it should be some
> good reading. Click the pictures to see them bigger. The side trip to
> Cedar Key was the highlight of the whole trip! If you go down there
> and do not check out Cedar Key your missing a lot.
>
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: RV Safety record |
Got it Jerry, it prompted a couple of emails with Ron. The cause data is
interesting and useful but we also need our accident rate per 100,000 hours
flown to compare with other groups. This rate is hard to come with as it
requires an estimate of how much the average RV flys per year. Ron is doing
good work on this and has more articles coiming.
Dick Sipp
RV10 N110DV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV Safety record
> Just curious if anyone received this pdf file I posted a while back to
> the list from Ron Wanttaja?
> All the talk of RV safety and not one comment on his research comparing
> RV's to other homebuilt
> safety. Maybe pdf files do not come through or maybe no one can open it.
> Let me know.
> Jerry Springer
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:24:42 -0700, Jerry Springer wrote
>
>>> Can can I post this on the RV-List?
>>> There is a discussion going on there about how to make the RV flying
>>> community safer and how to compare RV accidents to the rest of the
>>> homebuilt accident rates. Someone ask how to break the RVs apart from
>>> the rest of the homebuilt accident statistics. I would like to point
>>> people
>>> to your article or maybe you could help us out some way with RV accident
>>> statistics.
>>
> > Jerry
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I give talks to the local EAA chapters that go further than the articles.
> Attached is a page from my presentation where I discuss RV accident causes
> and
> compare them to the overall statistics. The data is based on accidents
> from
> 1998 through 2004, inclusive.
>
> "General Pilot Error" is basically mistakes in the stick-and-rudder
> skills;
> "SALA" stands for "Stupidity at Low Altitude," buzzing, flying up box
> canyons,
> etc. In my presentations, I use a red star to call attention to
> interesting
> results, such as the RV's higher rate in what I call 'cross-country'
> accidents.
>
> The lower rate of pilot error accidents may well be due to the higher
> general
> experience level of RV pilots, as shown by the median pilot hours.
>
> During the subject period the annual fleet accident rate for all
> homebuilts was
> about 0.94% (e.g., almost one out of every 100 homebuilts crashes in a
> given
> year) and the RV fleet accident rate was almost identical (0.90%). In
> contrast,
> the Glasair rate was 1.11%, The overall rate for all N-numbered aircraft
> was
> 0.63%, so homebuilts have a rate about 50% higher than the overall fleet.
>
> I'm currently adding 2005 and 2006 data to my database, and will be
> updating the
> graphs accordingly. Don't expect them to change too much, but you never
> know....
>
> Ron
>
>
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 |
|
Hello:
I need to buy a Oil Filter Cutter////I was shock...
when I see prices for, "A can Opener?"
Any one knows where I can get one, at a reasonable
price....How about a used one...is there a place to
look for that?
Also, need a Differncial Cylinder Preasure Tester"
A use place to get one of these also?
Any information will be appreciated..
Robert
rv6a
do not archive
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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! --
|