Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:35 AM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the fuel flow transducer (Linn Walters)
2. 07:26 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (John Miller)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating |
the fuel flow transducer
Dan reminded me that fuel issues can bite you when you least expect it.
When I was a baby pilot learning all the intricacies of my airplane I
had a mentor that shared his wealth of knowledge. One lesson was about
fuel exhaustion. There are some of us that, for various reasons, run a
tank dry. So, you fill up and put the plane away. The next flight you
start up and taxi for takeoff. The big question is how far will you go
before you exhaust the fuel in the lines? It's going to be different for
different planes. I had an AA-1B at that time that would start up, taxi
to the hold short line (it was close by) and make it through a quick
run-up ..... only to die approximately 3/4 or so down the runway in the
'simulated departure'. What an eye opener, and an important lesson that
has stayed with me for over 40 years. I've made that 'test' on every
plane I've owned over the years. Short of taking Tim's advice to break
the fuel lines at the servo and purge the lines, an extended ground run
on each available tank is cheap insurance.
Linn
On 2/18/2017 2:28 AM, dan@syz.com wrote:
Snip!!!
> I've learned a few valuable lessons here:
>
> - never assume that a problem is necessarily caused by what you expect it to
be caused by.
> - Running the boost pump while switching tanks was something I've always been
told to do but never fully understood why it's important. Now I have a perfect
example of why... and also know that leaving it running for a bit of time after
switching tanks isn't such a bad idea either.
> - Running the boost pump before going full throttle also makes a lot of sense
- we can anticipate the upcoming higher need for fuel, so that it's there before
it's needed, unlike the engine pump having to try and play catch up when it's
caught by surprise.
> - the people on the Matronics RV-10 list are an incredible resource :-)
Snip!!!
> Thanks again for all your advice, everyone!
>
> Dan
> ---
> Dan Charrois
> President, Syzygy Research & Technology
> Phone: 780-961-2213
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 5:06 PM, John Miller <gengrumpy@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:58 AM, John Miller <gengrumpy@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the FWIW area on starters, I originally had the LS starter on my 10. I had
always had difficulty starting with just 1 PC 680 battery. During my 2015
ACI I decided to send it back to SkyTech for refurb. When discussing with them,
they told me I had the wrong starter installed since the engine was built by
AeroSport Power in 2006! They sent me an overhauled NL starter with my LS as
the core. Same fit and function as the LS.
>>
>> The difference in the initial turning of blades is night and day different (MUCH
improved).
>>
>> grumpy
>> n184jm
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's kind of what I figured Phil. The photos all make it
>>> look much longer than the LS/PM versions. The LS and PM
>>> seem to be almost identical, with the solenoid on the opposite
>>> side of the main body. I may have some small wires like for
>>> my lightspeed ignition or something that I have to
>>> adjust but I don't expect anything major. It's just that
>>> going from a short/wide starter to a narrow/long one
>>> had me wondering if I was overlooking something. I guess
>>> I'll know in a couple weeks.
>>>
>>> I'll report back after I get them installed.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/17/2017 9:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tim,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the
>>>> differences between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine
>>>> that you would have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine
>>>> nicely. Perhaps you could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way,
>>>> but I doubt it.
>>>>
>>>> Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into perspective.
>>>>
>>>> For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on
>>>> the backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even
>>>> blink at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a
>>>> 680 for the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have
>>>> any issues at all.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
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! --
|