Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:48 AM - Travel canopy cover recommendations (Carl Froehlich)
2. 06:07 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (David Maib)
3. 06:31 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Jim Combs)
4. 06:33 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Michael Kraus)
5. 06:43 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Bob Leffler)
6. 06:44 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Tim Olson)
7. 06:46 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Tim Olson)
8. 06:49 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Marcus Cooper)
9. 06:59 AM - Fuel Lines (Marcus Cooper)
10. 07:14 AM - Re: Fuel Lines (Tim Olson)
11. 07:16 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Don Mc Donald)
12. 07:25 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Seano)
13. 07:45 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Carl Froehlich)
14. 07:51 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Preid)
15. 07:59 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Preid)
16. 08:01 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Tim Olson)
17. 08:10 AM - Re: Fuel Lines (Bob Leffler)
18. 08:30 AM - Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations (Rene)
19. 08:59 AM - Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (jkreidler)
20. 10:25 AM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (speckter@comcast.net)
21. 12:06 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (Deems Davis)
22. 01:35 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (speckter@comcast.net)
23. 01:49 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (jkreidler)
24. 02:02 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (Kelly McMullen)
25. 02:49 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (Robin Marks)
26. 03:23 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (Carl Froehlich)
27. 03:35 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (Robin Marks)
28. 03:48 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (jkreidler)
29. 03:55 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (Carl Froehlich)
30. 05:24 PM - Re: Fuel Lines (pilotdds)
31. 05:32 PM - HS angle of incidence (Carl Froehlich)
32. 05:45 PM - Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question (Thane States)
33. 05:47 PM - Re: Fuel Lines (Steve T)
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: | Travel canopy cover recommendations |
All,
Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van's offering
http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438
<http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&browse=a
irframe&product=canopy-covers> &browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and
the Cleaveland Tool listing
http://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
Thanks,
Carl
38.4 hours - final test period flight today if the weather cooperates
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
Carl, I have been using the cover from Flightline Interiors for about
three years now. It is lightweight, tough, and is holding up very
nicely.
David Maib
RV-10 Transition Trainer
40559
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
All,
Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=92s offering
http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brows
e=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool
listinghttp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
Thanks,
Carl
38.4 hours ' final test period flight today if the weather cooperates
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
I have a Flight Line Interiors cover. Lightweight and quality construction.
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it di
dn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV-1
0.
-Mike Kraus
RV-10 Flying
KitFox SS7 - building
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> w
rote:
> All,
>
> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offeri
ng http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brow
se=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http:
//www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>
> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>
> Thanks,
> Carl
> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coopera
tes
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
You can get a 10% discount from Bruce's covers by using a code from the rvai
rspace.com forum.
I've been very happy with their products.
Bob
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> w
rote:
> All,
>
> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offeri
ng http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brow
se=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http:
//www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>
> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>
> Thanks,
> Carl
> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coopera
tes
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
I have a Flightline and I love it. I forgot it on a trip and borrowed the c
leveland and that cover was miserable. I would definitely not get that one.
You will like the Flightline one though, IMHO it's ideal.
Tim
On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> w
rote:
> All,
>
> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offeri
ng http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brow
se=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http:
//www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>
> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>
> Thanks,
> Carl
> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coopera
tes
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3X t
he size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, but i
f I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much spac
e left for a huge cover.
Tim
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net> wrot
e:
> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it d
idn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
>
> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV
-10.
>
> -Mike Kraus
> RV-10 Flying
> KitFox SS7 - building
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offer
ing http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&bro
wse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http
://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>>
>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Carl
>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather cooper
ates
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
Carl,
I ordered the cover from Cleaveland Tool, it works great and has held
up well over the past 6 years, including 6 months in full-time exposure
while I was waiting for a hangar. It wads up nice and small and is very
light, keeps the water off extremely well.
Marcus
40286
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
All,
Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=92s offering
http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brows
e=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool
listinghttp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
Thanks,
Carl
38.4 hours ' final test period flight today if the weather cooperates
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
I'm into my sixth condition inspection and plan to upgrade to the braided flex
fuel lines. I've had no issues with the stock lines, but it seems like a good
idea. Not to appear too lazy, but I was wondering if anyone has measurements
from a stock installation for the new lines?
Also, I am considering a few options, build my own lines (not likely), go to
a local hot rod shop, or order online. Any recommendations would be appreciated,
I'm really trying to avoid breaking the bank as I also just sent in my annual
insurance check.
Thanks,
Marcus
do not archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I had the D-I-Y braided flex lines and they were working great. I decided to go
Teflon and although they are now great too, that took a bit of work, I would
do Teflon definitely if you aren't going hard aluminum, because of the "lifetime"
rating, but they are a little less flexible, and measurements are more critical....especially
the clocking of the fittings. Even if someone gives you
"standard" measurements I'd still grab a piece of maybe 1/2" poly tubing and
make some test hose runs and see for myself before I'd buy. The Teflon lines I
got from Bonaco wouldn't break the bank, but paying for them twice cuz they didn't
fit might be no fun.
Tim
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Marcus Cooper <coop85@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I'm into my sixth condition inspection and plan to upgrade to the braided flex
fuel lines. I've had no issues with the stock lines, but it seems like a good
idea. Not to appear too lazy, but I was wondering if anyone has measurements
from a stock installation for the new lines?
>
> Also, I am considering a few options, build my own lines (not likely), go
to a local hot rod shop, or order online. Any recommendations would be appreciated,
I'm really trying to avoid breaking the bank as I also just sent in my
annual insurance check.
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should have s
aid "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 traveling, t
here's always plenty of room for the cover.
Don McDonald
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3
X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu
t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s
pace left for a huge cover.
> Tim
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net> wr
ote:
>
>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it
didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
>>
>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R
V-10.
>>
>> -Mike Kraus
>> RV-10 Flying
>> KitFox SS7 - building
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.net
> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offe
ring http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&br
owse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing htt
p://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>>>
>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Carl
>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coope
rates
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ========================
>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> ========================
>>> cs.com
>>> ========================
>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>> ========================
>>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald <building_partner@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should hav
e said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 travelin
g, there's always plenty of room for the cover.
> Don McDonald
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3
X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu
t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s
pace left for a huge cover.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net> w
rote:
>>
>>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i
t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
>>>
>>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R
V-10.
>>>
>>> -Mike Kraus
>>> RV-10 Flying
>>> KitFox SS7 - building
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.ne
t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s off
ering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&b
rowse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing ht
tp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>>>>
>>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Carl
>>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coop
erates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========
>>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> =========
>>>> cs.com
>>>> =========
>>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>>> =========
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =========
>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> =========
>>> cs.com
>>> =========
>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>> =========
>>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: | Travel canopy cover recommendations |
Great feed from everyone =93 thanks.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Seano
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Travel canopy cover recommendations
I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald <building_partner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should
have said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2
traveling, there's always plenty of room for the cover.
Don McDonald
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least
3X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are
nice, but if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have
that much space left for a huge cover.
Tim
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net>
wrote:
I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but
it didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my
RV-10.
-Mike Kraus
RV-10 Flying
KitFox SS7 - building
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich"
<carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wrote:
All,
Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s
offering
http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438
<http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&bro
wse=airframe&product=canopy-covers>
&browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool
listing http://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
Thanks,
Carl
38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather
cooperates
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
Agree!
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Seano <sean@braunandco.com> wrote:
> I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald <building_partner@yahoo.com> wrote
:
>
>> Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should ha
ve said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 traveli
ng, there's always plenty of room for the cover.
>> Don McDonald
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least
3X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, b
ut if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s
pace left for a huge cover.
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net> w
rote:
>>>
>>>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i
t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
>>>>
>>>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my
RV-10.
>>>>
>>>> -Mike Kraus
>>>> RV-10 Flying
>>>> KitFox SS7 - building
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.n
et> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s of
fering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&
browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing h
ttp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>>>>>
>>>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Carl
>>>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coo
perates
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =========
>>>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> =========
>>>>> cs.com
>>>>> =========
>>>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>>>> =========
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========
>>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> =========
>>>> cs.com
>>>> =========
>>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>>> =========
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronh
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
contribution
>>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
Yes, but my back always hurts after we put it on your plane!!
The way to look at the difference is that Bruces covers are much more durabl
e and good for someone who leaves their planes out a lot on trips. Don, you q
ualify in this regard, but for someone who needs it for a couple a days at a
time the lightweight from flight line is a great option, light and does an e
xcellent job.
There is also a lightweight version from Bruce's that is designed for a hang
ar and is NOT water resistant or designed for outdoor use.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Don Mc Donald <building_partne@yahoo.com> wrote
:
> Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should hav
e said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 travelin
g, there's always plenty of room for the cover.
> Don McDonald
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3
X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu
t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s
pace left for a huge cover.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net> w
rote:
>>
>>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i
t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
>>>
>>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R
V-10.
>>>
>>> -Mike Kraus
>>> RV-10 Flying
>>> KitFox SS7 - building
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.ne
t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s off
ering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&b
rowse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing ht
tp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>>>>
>>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Carl
>>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coop
erates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========
>>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> =========
>>>> cs.com
>>>> =========
>>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>>> =========
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =========
>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> =========
>>> cs.com
>>> =========
>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>> =========
>>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Travel canopy cover recommendations |
Yep, I just never travel with 2. ;)
Tim
On Aug 25, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Don Mc Donald <building_partner@yahoo.com> wrot
e:
> Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should hav
e said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 travelin
g, there's always plenty of room for the cover.
> Don McDonald
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3
X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu
t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s
pace left for a huge cover.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net> w
rote:
>>
>>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i
t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
>>>
>>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R
V-10.
>>>
>>> -Mike Kraus
>>> RV-10 Flying
>>> KitFox SS7 - building
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@verizon.ne
t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s off
ering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&b
rowse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing ht
tp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
>>>>
>>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Carl
>>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coop
erates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =========
>>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> =========
>>>> cs.com
>>>> =========
>>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>>> =========
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =========
>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> =========
>>> cs.com
>>> =========
>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>> =========
>>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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 |
|
I would give Tom at tsflightlines.com a call. I got my fuel lines from him. He
has a couple options for eliminating a few connections if you are interested.
I've got a single line that goes from the fuel valve all the way to the tank.
This may or may not be possible depending on the location Of your valve.
The tunnel entrance is a little awkward with a single line.
Another RV-10 here had some problems and Tom ended providing some engineering assistance
through a web cam place in the tunnel. You can't get any better service
than that. He is also looking to build a RV whereas Bonaco is a car guy.
Bob
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> I had the D-I-Y braided flex lines and they were working great. I decided to
go Teflon and although they are now great too, that took a bit of work, I would
do Teflon definitely if you aren't going hard aluminum, because of the "lifetime"
rating, but they are a little less flexible, and measurements are more
critical....especially the clocking of the fittings. Even if someone gives you
"standard" measurements I'd still grab a piece of maybe 1/2" poly tubing and
make some test hose runs and see for myself before I'd buy. The Teflon lines
I got from Bonaco wouldn't break the bank, but paying for them twice cuz they
didn't fit might be no fun.
> Tim
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Marcus Cooper <coop85@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm into my sixth condition inspection and plan to upgrade to the braided flex
fuel lines. I've had no issues with the stock lines, but it seems like a good
idea. Not to appear too lazy, but I was wondering if anyone has measurements
from a stock installation for the new lines?
>>
>> Also, I am considering a few options, build my own lines (not likely), go
to a local hot rod shop, or order online. Any recommendations would be appreciated,
I'm really trying to avoid breaking the bank as I also just sent in my
annual insurance check.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marcus
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Travel canopy cover recommendations |
I also agree.I love my flightline cover.
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Preid
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Agree!
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Seano <sean@braunandco.com> wrote:
I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald <building_partner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should
have said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2
traveling, there's always plenty of room for the cover.
Don McDonald
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least
3X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are
nice, but if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have
that much space left for a huge cover.
Tim
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus <n223rv@wolflakeairport.net>
wrote:
I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but
it didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh.
I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my
RV-10.
-Mike Kraus
RV-10 Flying
KitFox SS7 - building
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich"
<carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wrote:
All,
Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s
offering
http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438
<http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&bro
wse=airframe&product=canopy-covers>
&browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool
listing http://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10
Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices?
Thanks,
Carl
38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather
cooperates
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
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: | Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. As some
know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run the airplane near
lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors.
We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to higher ambient
temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. So it is time to make
some modifications to provide more margin. I found that there was a change to
the inlet diameter of the James cowl. A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out
larger inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them.
So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline of our
current condition so we started on a path to gather data. I am disappointed
in myself that I didn't collect this data during the whole turbo injector experiment.
We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. We started by plumbing
in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the engine, second to the
cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector
manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static
pressure system.
Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise at 8000
PA and 4000 PA.
The data listed respectively were:
Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundant, but
it is an experiment after all.
So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static" reading.
There was an article in the September 96 issue of Sport Aviation by Jimmy
Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A significant pressure drop
indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow
over the cylinders and oil cooler". So what does a significant pressure drop mean?
We obviously do not have enough differential pressure over the cylinders,
I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and was told at one time that over 6"
differential pressure is needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system.
No point in opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. The good
news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretation
of where to go.
By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup is
more than doing its job! In fact I think it is safe to say the we're exceeding
the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup.
Thanks in advance - Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
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: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
Now I am no expert on this stuff but this is how I read it.=C2- You have
2-3" of back pressure on the lower cowl.=C2- You need more exit area.=C2
- This should increase the differential between the plenum and the lower
cowl but I don't think it will quite be enough to solve all the problems.
=C2- So I would increase the exit first and be prepared to also change ou
t the inlet rings after you get more data.
Gary Specketer
----- Original Message -----
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:58:50 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
m>
We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. =C3
=82=C2-As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run
the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors.
We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to high
er ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C3=82=C2-S
o it is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C3=82=C2
-I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl.
=C3=82=C2-A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at n
o charge with apologies for having to install them.
So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline o
f our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C3=82=C2
-I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the w
hole turbo injector experiment.
We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C3=82=C2-We
started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the e
ngine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third t
o the pressurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake a
ir box), fourth to the static pressure system.
Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise
at 8000 PA =C3=82=C2-and 4000 PA.=C3=82=C2-
The data listed respectively were:
Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundan
t, but it is an experiment after all.
So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static"
reading. =C3=82=C2-There was an article in the September 96 issue of Spor
t Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A
significant pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up t
he air causing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C3=82=C2-So
what does a significant pressure drop mean? =C3=82=C2-We obviously do no
t have enough differential pressure over the cylinders, I have found number
s for the 320 and 360 and was told at one time that over 6" differential pr
essure is needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C3=82
=C2-No point in opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C3
=82=C2-The good news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling
with the end interpretation of where to go.
By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup
is more than doing its job! =C3=82=C2-In fact I think it is safe to say
the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup.
Thanks in advance - Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
===========
===========
MS -
===========
e -
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each summer
I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is manifest in oil
temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering bent that your team
does. but after talking to and seeing Alan Bickle's beautiful plane and his
data I'm convinced the root of the problem is that the intake rings are
undersized for the -540. I've done everything I could think of to increase
the exit area w/ louvers and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl,
with no improvement. If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no
amount of increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've
been playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the
basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an inlet
on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed @ #6, which
should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with positive impact on #6
cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that it transitions smoothly
aft without adding to the the lower cowl pressure. I'm laid up following
knee surgery for the next few weeks so I can't work on it. I was going to
fashion the intake from fiberglass and use the gear leg slot cover/louver
as the attachment, then attach the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and
again some fiberglass for the oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about
this approach is that you don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it,
and it DOES increase the intake.
Deems
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler
<jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>wrote:
> jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
>
> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now.
> =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run th
e
> airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors.
>
> We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to
> higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C2 So
it
> is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C2 I found th
at
> there was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl. =C2 A quick
> e-mail to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at no charge with
> apologies for having to install them.
>
> So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline
> of our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C2 I am
> disappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the whole
> turbo injector experiment.
>
> We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We start
ed
> by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the engine,
> second to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third to the
> pressurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake air
> box), fourth to the static pressure system.
>
> Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruis
e
> at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2
>
> The data listed respectively were:
> Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
> Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
> Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
> Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
> Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
>
> I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been
> redundant, but it is an experiment after all.
>
> So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static
"
> reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue of Sport Avia
tion
> by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A significa
nt
> pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up the air
> causing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a
> significant pressure drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough
> differential pressure over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 32
0
> and 360 and was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is
> needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in
> opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good news is
I
> have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretatio
n
> of where to go.
>
> By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector
> setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is safe to say t
he
> we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup.
>
> Thanks in advance - Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
I am convinced=C2- that those folks with piston cooling jets have higher
oil temps than those without.
Deems, I think that your approach would work.=C2- You might have to play
with the intake duct routing if you plan on staying with the standard Van's
mounting for the cooler.=C2- Keep us p osted.
Good luck on your recovery. The lesson here is fly more walk less!
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:05:39 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each summer
I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is manifest =C2-in
oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering bent that your te
am does. but after talking to and seeing Alan Bickle's beautiful plane and
his data I'm convinced the root of the problem is that the intake rings are
undersized for the -540. I've done everything I could think of to increase
the exit area w/ louvers and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, w
ith no improvement. If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no a
mount of increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been
playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the basics
of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an inlet on the
underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed @ #6, which should
increase the pressure for the upper cowl with positive impact on #6 cyl te
mps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that it transitions smoothly aft with
out adding to =C2-the the lower cowl pressure. I'm laid up following knee
surgery for the next few weeks so I can't work on it. I was going to fashi
on the intake from fiberglass and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the
attachment, then attach the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again som
e fiberglass for the oil cooler exit duct. =C2-The nice thing about this
approach is that you don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it
DOES increase the intake.
Deems
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler < jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> wrote:
om >
We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. =C3
=82=C2-As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run
the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors.
We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to high
er ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C3=82=C2-S
o it is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C3=82=C2
-I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl.
=C3=82=C2-A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at n
o charge with apologies for having to install them.
So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline o
f our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C3=82=C2
-I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the w
hole turbo injector experiment.
We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C3=82=C2-We
started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the e
ngine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third t
o the pressurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake a
ir box), fourth to the static pressure system.
Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise
at 8000 PA =C3=82=C2-and 4000 PA.=C3=82=C2-
The data listed respectively were:
Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundan
t, but it is an experiment after all.
So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static"
reading. =C3=82=C2-There was an article in the September 96 issue of Spor
t Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A
significant pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up t
he air causing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C3=82=C2-So
what does a significant pressure drop mean? =C3=82=C2-We obviously do no
t have enough differential pressure over the cylinders, I have found number
s for the 320 and 360 and was told at one time that over 6" differential pr
essure is needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C3=82
=C2-No point in opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C3
=82=C2-The good news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling
with the end interpretation of where to go.
By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup
is more than doing its job! =C3=82=C2-In fact I think it is safe to say
the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup.
Thanks in advance - Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
===========
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
==
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: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
Deems, I wonder if just going to a larger air intake and splitting it so that part
of it goes to the air box and the other to the oil cooler. Not sure if that
is practical with you Rod Bower ram air or not. Just a quick thought... Good
feedback on the lower cowl mods not helping, thanks.
Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381803#381803
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a
large NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing
that made his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too
high in climb and in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the
baffling behind #4 of his IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get
it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets
are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on
lower face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting
it behind left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl
suffer reverse flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it
is a low pressure area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine.
Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will
get more flow over the cooler.
On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote:
> Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each
> summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is
> manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering
> bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan
> Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the
> problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've
> done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers
> and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement.
> If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of
> increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been
> playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the
> basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an
> inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed
> @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with
> positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that
> it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl
> pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so
> I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass
> and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach
> the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the
> oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you
> don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase
> the intake.
>
> Deems
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>> wrote:
>
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>>
>
> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years
> now. As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order
> to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo
> injectors.
>
> We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think
> due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended
> climbs. So it is time to make some modifications to provide more
> margin. I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of
> the James cowl. A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger
> inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them.
>
> So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good
> baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to
> gather data. I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect
> this data during the whole turbo injector experiment.
>
> We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. We
> started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber
> above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine
> (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which
> is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static
> pressure system.
>
> Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then
> in cruise at 8000 PA and 4000 PA.
>
> The data listed respectively were:
> Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
> Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
> Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
> Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
> Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
>
> I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been
> redundant, but it is an experiment after all.
>
> So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to
> Static" reading. There was an article in the September 96 issue
> of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems"
> where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the
> bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the
> cylinders and oil cooler". So what does a significant pressure
> drop mean? We obviously do not have enough differential pressure
> over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and
> was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed,
> but I want to attack the right end of the system. No point in
> opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. The good
> news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the
> end interpretation of where to go.
>
> By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo
> injector setup is more than doing its job! In fact I think it is
> safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the
> standard setup.
>
> Thanks in advance - Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: | Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
Gentleman,
As you know I have a similar set up James cowl / Plenum / 2008 Oil Cooler /
Turbo Nozzles / Barrett FFCI. The difference is we have a dedicated openin
g on the lower cowl that feeds the 2008 oil cooler directly and gives me so
mething like a DP of 14" across the oil cooler at speed. adding this was th
e single most beneficial item that helped my overall cooling situation. No
amount of outlet opening came close to the dedicated oil cooler line. That
being said getting the cooler to work at near max efficiency is nice but it
's like getting a slightly larger bucket to put out a fire. You are better
off trying to start with a smaller fire. You really need to address the cyl
inder temps and that will assist with the oil temps NOT the other way aroun
d.
One more thing about adding more high velocity air through the oil cooler i
s that tends to pressurize the lower cowl which I think is really working a
gainst your goal of having pressure move from High (upper cowl) to Low (low
er cowl). I am afraid that you will go to all that work and see little bene
fit until you deal with the inlet opening.
After nearly 350 hours and lots of nursing ROP flights in So. Cal summers I
have decided to "shitcan" the whole set up and start over. I have HATED th
e plenum for many reasons and found when I converted my 8A from Plenum to B
affle system I lost nothing in terms of performance and gained simplicity a
nd easy access to the top deck of the engine which to me is added safety. T
he smart thing to do is revert to the Vans standard cowl since we have a fl
eet that has no issues (thanks Van!). But since it's me.... I have decided
to be one of the first to install the Showplanes cowl and start a whole new
experiment. The difference is the Showplanes cowl has a great deal of rese
arch & development behind it vs. the James Cowl which does not even mate up
to the James Plenum. My bad for ever making that choice. This is a slightl
y easier choice since their test bed aircraft is a Barrett FF Cold Inductio
n just like mine. I will be going from 4 holes in the front of my cowl to t
wo holes which should be a huge improvement aerodynamically. I plan to star
t this project as soon as the 8A is out of paint around Mid-September. Hope
fully I can report back before the new year. I am so familiar with my temp/
performance numbers it will be simple to notice a difference.
Swapping out the cowl may seem extreme but the cost associated with all the
R&D, fuel burn ROP especially during engine break in etc... I am sure is w
ell over $10K to date and probably closer to $15K. Throw in the potential f
or reduced TBO and who knows... I am looking for a permenate solution once
and for all. Unfortunately I know retrofitting the Vans cowl is the smartes
t option but I have never been accused of taking the easy road so why shoul
d today be any different.
For what it's worth I personally think the replacement inlet rings from Jam
es are still too small especially for pilots in generally warmer climates.
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each summer
I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is manifest in oil
temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering bent that your team do
es. but after talking to and seeing Alan Bickle's beautiful plane and his d
ata I'm convinced the root of the problem is that the intake rings are unde
rsized for the -540. I've done everything I could think of to increase the
exit area w/ louvers and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with n
o improvement. If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount
of increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been play
ing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the basics of it
is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an inlet on the under
side of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed @ #6, which should incr
ease the pressure for the upper cowl with positive impact on #6 cyl temps).
Duct the oil cooler exit air so that it transitions smoothly aft without a
dding to the the lower cowl pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery f
or the next few weeks so I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the int
ake from fiberglass and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachmen
t, then attach the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fibergla
ss for the oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is tha
t you don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase
the intake.
Deems
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com<
mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>> wrote:
m<mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>>
We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. =C2
As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run the air
plane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors.
We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to high
er ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C2 So it is
time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C2 I found that th
ere was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mai
l to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at no charge with apologies fo
r having to install them.
So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline o
f our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C2 I am di
sappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the whole turbo
injector experiment.
We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We started
by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the engine, s
econd to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third to the pr
essurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake air box),
fourth to the static pressure system.
Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise
at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2
The data listed respectively were:
Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundan
t, but it is an experiment after all.
So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static"
reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue of Sport Aviati
on by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A signific
ant pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up the air c
ausing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a sig
nificant pressure drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differenti
al pressure over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 an
d was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed, but I
want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in opening up the
inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good news is I have the data,
the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretation of where to go.
By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup
is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is safe to say the we'r
e exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup.
Thanks in advance - Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
I too have the James Cowl and plenum (stock Van=92s IO-360 and Hartzell
prop).
At 39 hours now I'm satisfied with the engine temps. Here are the
modifications I made:
=B7 I was not thrilled with the Van=92s lower cowl louvers. I
instead
added a set of cowl louvers to the bottom of the cowl. Photo attached.
While I was able to have acceptable (but on the high side) CHTs with the
cowl without the louvers, I had to keep the speed up in the climb (~140
knots). A hot day run with the louvers (85 degrees ground air temp)
have
CHTs noticeably cooler ' peak temp on an aggressive 120 knot climb to
8500=92
was 426 degrees (dropping rapidly once passed 4000=92). In high speed
cruise
CHTs were between 365 and 390. I got these louvers from Avery Tools. I
trimmed each side 1/8=94 and cut off the top two slots. This is a
simple mod,
and I will replace the louvers with blank plates for winter time.
Flight
data is scattered, but if anything the louvers may have a 1 knot or so
speed
penalty.
=B7 I did not use the weird Van=92s angled oil cooler mount and
my oil
temps have been cooler than what I hear on RV-10s using the stock
Van=92s
cowl. I find it necessary to partially shut the oil cooler air
butterfly
valve to get the temps up to 190 or so. Photos attached on how I
mounded my
cooler.
=B7 I used the Airflow 2006X oil cooler ' and recommend it.
=B7 I really did not like the heat muffs blasting hot air at the
engine mechanical fuel pump (i.e. cabin heat valves are shut). I
mounted
the cabin heat control valves on a piece of KoolMat
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php such that the
KoolMat folded over the tops of the cabin heat valves and then tucked in
between the valves and the forward gear mount (sorry, I could not find
of
photo but this is very simple). The result was on a hot day (no cabin
heat)
the heat muff discharge is directed down toward the cowl exit, not back
at
the engine.
Still doing speed runs but I=92m measurably faster than Van=92s numbers.
The
James Cowl is not magical, it is simply an adjustment to the tradeoff
between drag and cooling. I=92m happy on how it worked out for me.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
<mailto:kellym@aviating.com> kellym@aviating.com>
Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a
large
NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing that
made
his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too high in climb
and
in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the baffling behind #4 of
his
IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get
it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets
are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on
lower
face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting it
behind
left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl suffer reverse
flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it is a low
pressure
area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine.
Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will
get
more flow over the cooler.
On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote:
> Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each
> summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is
> manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering
> bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan
> Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the
> problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've
> done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers
> and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement.
> If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of
> increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been
> playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the
> basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an
> inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed
> @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with
> positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that
> it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl
> pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so
> I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass
> and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach
> the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the
> oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you
> don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase
> the intake.
>
> Deems
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> < <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>> wrote:
>
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> < <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>>
>
> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years
> now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in
order
> to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo
> injectors.
>
> We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think
> due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended
> climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide
more
> margin. =C2 I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter
of
> the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger
> inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install
them.
>
> So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good
> baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to
> gather data. =C2 I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect
> this data during the whole turbo injector experiment.
>
> We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2
We
> started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber
> above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine
> (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which
> is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static
> pressure system.
>
> Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then
> in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2
>
> The data listed respectively were:
> Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
> Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
> Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
> Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
> Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
>
> I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been
> redundant, but it is an experiment after all.
>
> So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to
> Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96
issue
> of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems"
> where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the
> bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the
> cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a significant pressure
> drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differential
pressure
> over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and
> was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed,
> but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in
> opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good
> news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the
> end interpretation of where to go.
>
> By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo
> injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it
is
> safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the
> standard setup.
>
> Thanks in advance - Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com
List
7-Day
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
IO-360 or IO-540?
Robin
Do Not Archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
I too have the James Cowl and plenum (stock Van's IO-360 and Hartzell prop)
. At 39 hours now I'm satisfied with the engine temps. Here are the modif
ications I made:
=B7 I was not thrilled with the Van's lower cowl louvers. I instea
d added a set of cowl louvers to the bottom of the cowl. Photo attached.
While I was able to have acceptable (but on the high side) CHTs with the co
wl without the louvers, I had to keep the speed up in the climb (~140 knots
). A hot day run with the louvers (85 degrees ground air temp) have CHTs n
oticeably cooler - peak temp on an aggressive 120 knot climb to 8500' was 4
26 degrees (dropping rapidly once passed 4000'). In high speed cruise CHTs
were between 365 and 390. I got these louvers from Avery Tools. I trimme
d each side 1/8" and cut off the top two slots. This is a simple mod, and
I will replace the louvers with blank plates for winter time. Flight data
is scattered, but if anything the louvers may have a 1 knot or so speed pen
alty.
=B7 I did not use the weird Van's angled oil cooler mount and my oi
l temps have been cooler than what I hear on RV-10s using the stock Van's c
owl. I find it necessary to partially shut the oil cooler air butterfly va
lve to get the temps up to 190 or so. Photos attached on how I mounded my
cooler.
=B7 I used the Airflow 2006X oil cooler - and recommend it.
=B7 I really did not like the heat muffs blasting hot air at the en
gine mechanical fuel pump (i.e. cabin heat valves are shut). I mounted the
cabin heat control valves on a piece of KoolMat http://www.aircraftspruce.
com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php such that the KoolMat folded over the tops
of the cabin heat valves and then tucked in between the valves and the forw
ard gear mount (sorry, I could not find of photo but this is very simple).
The result was on a hot day (no cabin heat) the heat muff discharge is dir
ected down toward the cowl exit, not back at the engine.
Still doing speed runs but I'm measurably faster than Van's numbers. The J
ames Cowl is not magical, it is simply an adjustment to the tradeoff betwee
n drag and cooling. I'm happy on how it worked out for me.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma
tronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]<mailto:[mailto:o
wner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]> On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
:kellym@aviating.com>>
Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a large
NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing that ma
de his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too high in climb
and in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the baffling behind #4
of his IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get
it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets
are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on lowe
r face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting it behi
nd left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl suffer reverse
flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it is a low pressur
e area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine.
Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will get
more flow over the cooler.
On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote:
> Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each
> summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is
> manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering
> bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan
> Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the
> problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've
> done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers
> and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement.
> If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of
> increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been
> playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the
> basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an
> inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed
> @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with
> positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that
> it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl
> pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so
> I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass
> and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach
> the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the
> oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you
> don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase
> the intake.
>
> Deems
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>> wrote:
>
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>>
>
> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years
> now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order
> to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo
> injectors.
>
> We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think
> due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended
> climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide more
> margin. =C2 I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of
> the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger
> inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them.
>
> So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good
> baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to
> gather data. =C2 I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect
> this data during the whole turbo injector experiment.
>
> We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We
> started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber
> above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine
> (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which
> is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static
> pressure system.
>
> Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then
> in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2
>
> The data listed respectively were:
> Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
> Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
> Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
> Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
> Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
>
> I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been
> redundant, but it is an experiment after all.
>
> So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to
> Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue
> of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems"
> where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the
> bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the
> cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a significant pressure
> drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differential pressure
> over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and
> was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed,
> but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in
> opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good
> news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the
> end interpretation of where to go.
>
> By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo
> injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is
> safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the
> standard setup.
>
> Thanks in advance - Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
Gary, so that is the thing I am having trouble getting my head around. In theory
we would like to get to a negative pressure in the lower cowl to pull the air
through. At first I thought that the lower outlet of the cowl that exits into
a void would cause a vacuum. But then again any restriction to flow of the air
out of the lower cowl should cause a slight rise in pressure in the lower cowl.
I think even getting to zero is a fairly lofty goal as the flow will likely
never be perfect. Now as you said anything above zero is directly opposing
the flow from the upper cowl. To me even if the flow were zero it would mean that
the differential pressure at best would be 2" higher, still borderline short
of the 6" goal.
All that said, I am still open since I am struggling to get my head around this.
There is much published about what the differential pressure needs to be, there
is very little I have found about what an acceptable value is for the pressure
in the lower cowl.
Robin, as they say that is the way the pickle squirts. I know all too well the
investment of time and money you have in the James Cowl. The question comes back
often "Would you go with the James cowl again?", I have to say that I really
love the way it looks. I am really disappointed that it does not add to the
speed of the airplane and that it is marginal at best for cooling the standard
260 HP engine. Anxious to hear your results on the next project.
Just heard that Neil Armstrong has passed, I was not around in those days but still
am touched by what was accomplished. I am saddened not only at his passing
but also by the fact that we have pushed space exploration to the bottom of
our list of priorities. At the same time other countries around the world are
rallying around space like we did back then. Sorry for the off topic turn...
Jason
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381814#381814
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: | Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
Oops ' I meant to say IO-540.
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
IO-360 or IO-540?
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Froehlich
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
I too have the James Cowl and plenum (stock Van=92s IO-540 and Hartzell
prop).
At 39 hours now I'm satisfied with the engine temps. Here are the
modifications I made:
=B7 I was not thrilled with the Van=92s lower cowl louvers. I
instead
added a set of cowl louvers to the bottom of the cowl. Photo attached.
While I was able to have acceptable (but on the high side) CHTs with the
cowl without the louvers, I had to keep the speed up in the climb (~140
knots). A hot day run with the louvers (85 degrees ground air temp)
have
CHTs noticeably cooler ' peak temp on an aggressive 120 knot climb to
8500=92
was 426 degrees (dropping rapidly once passed 4000=92). In high speed
cruise
CHTs were between 365 and 390. I got these louvers from Avery Tools. I
trimmed each side 1/8=94 and cut off the top two slots. This is a
simple mod,
and I will replace the louvers with blank plates for winter time.
Flight
data is scattered, but if anything the louvers may have a 1 knot or so
speed
penalty.
=B7 I did not use the weird Van=92s angled oil cooler mount and
my oil
temps have been cooler than what I hear on RV-10s using the stock
Van=92s
cowl. I find it necessary to partially shut the oil cooler air
butterfly
valve to get the temps up to 190 or so. Photos attached on how I
mounded my
cooler.
=B7 I used the Airflow 2006X oil cooler ' and recommend it.
=B7 I really did not like the heat muffs blasting hot air at the
engine mechanical fuel pump (i.e. cabin heat valves are shut). I
mounted
the cabin heat control valves on a piece of KoolMat
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php such that the
KoolMat folded over the tops of the cabin heat valves and then tucked in
between the valves and the forward gear mount (sorry, I could not find
of
photo but this is very simple). The result was on a hot day (no cabin
heat)
the heat muff discharge is directed down toward the cowl exit, not back
at
the engine.
Still doing speed runs but I=92m measurably faster than Van=92s numbers.
The
James Cowl is not magical, it is simply an adjustment to the tradeoff
between drag and cooling. I=92m happy on how it worked out for me.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
<mailto:kellym@aviating.com> kellym@aviating.com>
Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a
large
NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing that
made
his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too high in climb
and
in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the baffling behind #4 of
his
IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get
it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets
are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on
lower
face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting it
behind
left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl suffer reverse
flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it is a low
pressure
area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine.
Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will
get
more flow over the cooler.
On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote:
> Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each
> summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is
> manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering
> bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan
> Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the
> problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've
> done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers
> and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement.
> If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of
> increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been
> playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the
> basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an
> inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed
> @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with
> positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that
> it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl
> pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so
> I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass
> and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach
> the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the
> oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you
> don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase
> the intake.
>
> Deems
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> < <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>> wrote:
>
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> < <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>>
>
> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years
> now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in
order
> to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo
> injectors.
>
> We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think
> due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended
> climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide
more
> margin. =C2 I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter
of
> the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger
> inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install
them.
>
> So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good
> baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to
> gather data. =C2 I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect
> this data during the whole turbo injector experiment.
>
> We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2
We
> started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber
> above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine
> (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which
> is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static
> pressure system.
>
> Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then
> in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2
>
> The data listed respectively were:
> Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
> Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
> Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
> Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
> Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
>
> I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been
> redundant, but it is an experiment after all.
>
> So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to
> Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96
issue
> of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems"
> where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the
> bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the
> cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a significant pressure
> drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differential
pressure
> over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and
> was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed,
> but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in
> opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good
> news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the
> end interpretation of where to go.
>
> By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo
> injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it
is
> safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the
> standard setup.
>
> Thanks in advance - Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
I believe Bonaco is also an rv-8 guy
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Leffler <rv@thelefflers.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 25, 2012 8:10 am
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Lines
I would give Tom at tsflightlines.com a call. I got my fuel lines from him
. He
has a couple options for eliminating a few connections if you are intereste
d.
I've got a single line that goes from the fuel valve all the way to the tan
k.
This may or may not be possible depending on the location Of your valve.
The
tunnel entrance is a little awkward with a single line.
Another RV-10 here had some problems and Tom ended providing some engineeri
ng
assistance through a web cam place in the tunnel. You can't get any better
service than that. He is also looking to build a RV whereas Bonaco is a c
ar
guy.
Bob
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> I had the D-I-Y braided flex lines and they were working great. I decide
d to
go Teflon and although they are now great too, that took a bit of work, I
would
do Teflon definitely if you aren't going hard aluminum, because of the
"lifetime" rating, but they are a little less flexible, and measurements ar
e
more critical....especially the clocking of the fittings. Even if someone
gives
you "standard" measurements I'd still grab a piece of maybe 1/2" poly tubin
g and
make some test hose runs and see for myself before I'd buy. The Teflon line
s I
got from Bonaco wouldn't break the bank, but paying for them twice cuz they
didn't fit might be no fun.
> Tim
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Marcus Cooper <coop85@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm into my sixth condition inspection and plan to upgrade to the braide
d
flex fuel lines. I've had no issues with the stock lines, but it seems lik
e a
good idea. Not to appear too lazy, but I was wondering if anyone has
measurements from a stock installation for the new lines?
>>
>> Also, I am considering a few options, build my own lines (not likely),
go
to a local hot rod shop, or order online. Any recommendations would be
appreciated, I'm really trying to avoid breaking the bank as I also just se
nt in
my annual insurance check.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marcus
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | HS angle of incidence |
All,
Bad weather today so I'm stuck at 39.1 hours. Here are some test results
you may find of interest.
Attached photos are of the elevator horns at different CGs, with and without
a .040" shim under the HS forward spar. While solo (most forward CG
condition - 109") I noted a small elevator trailing edge down situation
leading me to believe the HS angle of incidence was too low (too much
downward force) as the elevator trailing edge down trim would be imparting
an upward force. Also attached is a photo of the elevators with the CG at
114.5" (the most aft I would practically experience).
I note that even with the shim I have a lot of up nose trim left in landing
configuration when solo, the most forward CG condition. My take is the .040
shim helped with the HS rigging, but it may not be enough. I may replace
the it with a .063" shim.
What have others experienced?
Carl
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: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question |
One thing I found after awhile running the James cowl and plenum was
that in flight the plenum would pressurize and rise up in the front, and
was even rubbing on the cowl. Once I realized what was happening, I
made a bracket on the front of the plenum, and then safety wired the
bracket to the case half on the front of engine. That has definately
helped. In the hot Season I also, this year, put a plug behind the #6
cylinder where the pulloff for cabin heat is. I live here in the South
so I only have the one supply and tee off for the heat. Just never
needed more heat, works almost too good in our mild Winters. I hate to
hear about all the heat issues, but I truely have no hi oil or cylinder
temps.
Coimming back today from KILM, 4500ft. 21" 2300 rpm, 10.5 gph LOP. Oil
temp was 171, all CLY. barely over 315. OAT, of course was a cool 60F.
Anyway good luck, I hope you find a solution.
Thane
RV-10
228Hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Froehlich
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Oops - I meant to say IO-540.
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:35 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
IO-360 or IO-540?
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Froehlich
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:23 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
I too have the James Cowl and plenum (stock Van's IO-540 and Hartzell
prop). At 39 hours now I'm satisfied with the engine temps. Here are
the modifications I made:
=B7 I was not thrilled with the Van's lower cowl louvers. I
instead added a set of cowl louvers to the bottom of the cowl. Photo
attached. While I was able to have acceptable (but on the high side)
CHTs with the cowl without the louvers, I had to keep the speed up in
the climb (~140 knots). A hot day run with the louvers (85 degrees
ground air temp) have CHTs noticeably cooler - peak temp on an
aggressive 120 knot climb to 8500' was 426 degrees (dropping rapidly
once passed 4000'). In high speed cruise CHTs were between 365 and 390.
I got these louvers from Avery Tools. I trimmed each side 1/8" and cut
off the top two slots. This is a simple mod, and I will replace the
louvers with blank plates for winter time. Flight data is scattered,
but if anything the louvers may have a 1 knot or so speed penalty.
=B7 I did not use the weird Van's angled oil cooler mount and
my oil temps have been cooler than what I hear on RV-10s using the stock
Van's cowl. I find it necessary to partially shut the oil cooler air
butterfly valve to get the temps up to 190 or so. Photos attached on
how I mounded my cooler.
=B7 I used the Airflow 2006X oil cooler - and recommend it.
=B7 I really did not like the heat muffs blasting hot air at
the engine mechanical fuel pump (i.e. cabin heat valves are shut). I
mounted the cabin heat control valves on a piece of KoolMat
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php such that the
KoolMat folded over the tops of the cabin heat valves and then tucked in
between the valves and the forward gear mount (sorry, I could not find
of photo but this is very simple). The result was on a hot day (no
cabin heat) the heat muff discharge is directed down toward the cowl
exit, not back at the engine.
Still doing speed runs but I'm measurably faster than Van's numbers.
The James Cowl is not magical, it is simply an adjustment to the
tradeoff between drag and cooling. I'm happy on how it worked out for
me.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:02 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a
large NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing
that made his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too
high in climb and in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the
baffling behind #4 of his IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get
it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets
are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on
lower face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting
it behind left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl
suffer reverse flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it
is a low pressure area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine.
Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will
get more flow over the cooler.
On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote:
> Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each
> summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is
> manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the
engineering
> bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan
> Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the
> problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've
> done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/
louvers
> and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement.
> If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of
> increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been
> playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the
> basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an
> inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air
feed
> @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with
> positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so
that
> it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl
> pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks
so
> I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from
fiberglass
> and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then
attach
> the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for
the
> oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that
you
> don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase
> the intake.
>
> Deems
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>> wrote:
>
> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com
> <mailto:jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>>
>
> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few
years
> now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in
order
> to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the
turbo
> injectors.
>
> We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think
> due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended
> climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide
more
> margin. =C2 I found that there was a change to the inlet
diameter of
> the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out
larger
> inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install
them.
>
> So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good
> baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to
> gather data. =C2 I am disappointed in myself that I didn't
collect
> this data during the whole turbo injector experiment.
>
> We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2
We
> started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber
> above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine
> (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold
(which
> is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static
> pressure system.
>
> Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then
> in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2
>
> The data listed respectively were:
> Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4"
> Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10"
> Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5"
> Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10"
> Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3"
>
> I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have
been
> redundant, but it is an experiment after all.
>
> So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl
to
> Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96
issue
> of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems"
> where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the
> bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the
> cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a significant
pressure
> drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differential
pressure
> over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and
> was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is
needed,
> but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point
in
> opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good
> news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with
the
> end interpretation of where to go.
>
> By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo
> injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think
it is
> safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of
the
> standard setup.
>
> Thanks in advance - Jason
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
08/25/12
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 |
|
We sell them at www.kitplanehoses.com. They are extremely high quality and are all pressure tested.
We have an interactive web pricing calculator that allows you to price your hoses
and order in one convenient step.
Steve
Www.aircraftspecialty.com
Www.kitplanemods.com
Www.kitplanehoses.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:59, Marcus Cooper <coop85@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I'm into my sixth condition inspection and plan to upgrade to the braided flex
fuel lines. I've had no issues with the stock lines, but it seems like a good
idea. Not to appear too lazy, but I was wondering if anyone has measurements
from a stock installation for the new lines?
>
> Also, I am considering a few options, build my own lines (not likely), go
to a local hot rod shop, or order online. Any recommendations would be appreciated,
I'm really trying to avoid breaking the bank as I also just sent in my
annual insurance check.
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
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! --
|