Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:40 AM - Bi-plane (Ruhnke, Mike)
2. 06:01 AM - Re: Re: [TailwindForum] (unknown) (Dave Conrad)
3. 06:02 AM - Re: Bi-plane (Dave Conrad)
4. 01:41 PM - Re: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight and some related fuel questions (Rick)
5. 04:28 PM - Re: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight and some related fuel questions (George Turner)
6. 05:00 PM - Public Thanks to George Turner (Bruce E. Butts)
7. 05:52 PM - Re: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight and some related fuel questions (john koning)
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 |
|
Now I don't feel so bad that I'm comming up on my ten year anniversary of receiving
my plans. #1137
Mike NW Illinois
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [TailwindForum] (unknown) |
Dennis, After building my Hatz over a 10 year period I am amazed
everyday working on the Tailwind. Construction is very simple and parts
count is much lower than on the Hatz. I'm 1 1/2 years along on the
Tailwind and all major components are built. (90% done 90% left)
However you can't beat a biplane on a nice summer day. Keep working on
it. Dave Conrad
On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 12:00 AM, flamini2 wrote:
> Dave,
> i also have a photo of my Son in the biplane in 1969, those are his
> Sons in the photo, he works for United and his Brother is a Southwest
> pilot.
> The funny part is when i brought it home from the airport my wife
> thought i bought another airplane!!
> The project could set a record for completion time if i live that long.
> i have a friend who started a Skybolt about the same time and still
> not done but he paid extra to have the plans airmailed to him so he
> got a head start on me!!
> On a positive note 330' of tubing was $128 in 1967.
> Dennis in Chicago then Dallas then Oshkosh.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Conrad
> To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Re: [TailwindForum] (unknown)
>
> Great picture of the boys checking out the project! I have one like
> that of my boys when they were little in my Hatz. Priceless! Dave
> Conrad
> P.S. tonight was the perfect Biplane evening. 85=B0 and muggy. Yes I
> flew.
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, at 09:13 PM, flamini2 wrote:
>
> Looks like i will be in Dallas Thurs thru Mon but will catch up with
> everyone at the Flyin.
> Here is a photo of my retirement project, a biplane i started 37 years
> ago when i was 24 years old.
> Now 61 and better get it done before i am too old to fly it.
> Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim and Donna Clement
> To: TailwindForum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [TailwindForum] (unknown)
>
> Pat, Plan is to fly to OSH on Monday. Jim C
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: patmc2002
> To: TailwindForum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:35 PM
> Subject: [TailwindForum] (unknown)
>
> I know that the tailwind fly-in is on the 24th and 25th. But are
> there going to be a majority of people there on Monday, and are most
> of you flying on to Oshkosh on Tuesday?...Pat Mc.
>
>
> The Tailwind Forum group site is:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TailwindForum
>
>
> The Tailwind Forum group site is:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TailwindForum
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
> =95 To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TailwindForum/
>
> =95 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> TailwindForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> <sanger 7-19-04ax.jpg><biplane 7-20-04x.jpg>
>
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 |
|
good things shouldn't be rushed, but keep focus.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 06:40 AM, Ruhnke, Mike wrote:
> Now I don't feel so bad that I'm comming up on my ten year
> anniversary=A0of receiving my plans.=A0 #1137
>
> Mike NW Illinois
>
> do not archive
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: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight |
and some related fuel questions
I know there's almost no difference in the C145 and O300, Cy, and so does everybody
else here. Roger's question was about fuel pumps on O300s, not C145s.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: cgalley
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Only difference is the crank in the O-300 has counterweights, Every thing else
is the same. Many C-145 have had the crank changed. It is mostly just an ID
that changed. Same Cert. E-253
Certification basis
CAR 13
Type Certificate No. 253 issued for C145-2 December 59 1947; C145-2H added April
1, 1949; C145-2HP added January 27, 1953; O-300-A added May 12, 1954; O-300-B
added September 27, 1955; O-300-C added February 24, 1959; O-300-D added June
1, 1960; O-300-E added April 3, 1963
So that all 170 before may 12, 1954 had to have C-145 301 cu in after that date
the probably are O-300 of 301 cu in. As I said before it is just mostly a difference
in Name.
From: Rick
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Yes, but that wasn't an O300.
----- Original Message -----
From: cgalley
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
All 1948 Cessna 170s had a fuel pump on the C-145.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden
flight and some related fuel questions
Rogers:
I don't know of any O300 powered Tailwinds that have experienced the exact
problems you tell us of.
Few, if any O300 powered anythings are equipped with a fuel pump. By far
most of these engines would have been on C172s, which had no fuel pump.
I doubt anyone on this group can put their finger on a Tailwind that has
had an O300 with a fuel pump, although there are one or two members who are
obsessed with such details that may know of one.
The wooden prop provides far less flywheel than a metal one, and will therefore
stop windmilling at a higher speed. Likely the pilot slowed down when
he had difficulty, stopping the prop.
It is possible for an aircooled engine to seize when overheated, then unseize
when cool. This will likely be a piston to cylinder wall seizure and there
will be evidence of this on the cylinder walls. If the crank main bearings
or big end connecting rod bearings seized, the engine will likely stay seized.
We hate to hear of a Tailwind crashing, but we're glad the pilot escaped
serious injury.
Rick
N241SW
----- Original Message -----
From: Rogers
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:32 PM
Subject: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Fellow Listers
On its maiden flight, a Canadian-registered tricycle T-wind experienced
an engine stoppage shortly after take off and ended up on its back after a
forced landing in a soybean field. Test pilot had only minor scratches, but the
plane is close to being a write-off. Fuselage is in fairly good shape, and one
wing seems totally undamaged. Nose gear broke off and caused major damage to
the other wing. The dyna-focal engine mount hardly deformed at all and in fact
broke the attachment points off the motor case.
The owner is in the process of tearing down the engine but is already
wondering if fuel starvation may have played a role. The engine ran perfectly
throughout the take-off and only experienced problems as the test pilot pulled
it into a steep climb. He claims the engine ran rough for a few seconds and
then stopped. The wooden prop stopped windmilling almost immediately. Re-starting
apparently involved taking both hands off the stick--which he decided not
to do at 150 feet off the runway. The pre-flight dipped fuel reading indicated
about 3/4 full tank. I don't know how much head there was between the fuel tank
outlet and carb inlet.
Measured fuel flow with both the tail and the mains on the ground (don't
know what angle that represents) was 2 1/2 times maximum full throttle fuel
consumption.
Questions:
Has anyone on the list experienced similar problems with the 0-300?
Is anyone flying a T-wind with the 0-300 WITHOUT fuel pump assist?
Does it seem likely that a wooden prop would stop windmilling that quickly
with the plane going 95 mph in a nose-high attitude?
The engine turned over freely post-crash. If the engine did seize in
flight, is it likely that it would unseize after the forced landing?
Any feedback greatly appreciated.
Roger
My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter
10985 spam mails have been blocked so far.
Download free SPAMfighter today!
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: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight |
and some related fuel questions
I didn't know that.
George
Rick <rcaviate@infionline.net> wrote:
I know there's almost no difference in the C145 and O300, Cy, and so does everybody
else here. Roger's question was about fuel pumps on O300s, not C145s.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: cgalley
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Only difference is the crank in the O-300 has counterweights, Every thing else
is the same. Many C-145 have had the crank changed. It is mostly just an ID that
changed. Same Cert. E-253
Certification basis
CAR 13
Type Certificate No. 253 issued for C145-2 December 59 1947; C145-2H added April
1, 1949; C145-2HP added January 27, 1953; O-300-A added May 12, 1954; O-300-B
added September 27, 1955; O-300-C added February 24, 1959; O-300-D added June
1, 1960; O-300-E added April 3, 1963
So that all 170 before may 12, 1954 had to have C-145 301 cu in after that date
the probably are O-300 of 301 cu in. As I said before it is just mostly a difference
in Name.
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Yes, but that wasn't an O300.
----- Original Message -----
From: cgalley
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
All 1948 Cessna 170s had a fuel pump on the C-145.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Rogers:
I don't know of any O300 powered Tailwinds that have experienced the exact problems
you tell us of.
Few, if any O300 powered anythings are equipped with a fuel pump. By far most of
these engines would have been on C172s, which had no fuel pump.
I doubt anyone on this group can put their finger on a Tailwind that has had an
O300 with a fuel pump, although there are one or two members who are obsessed
with such details that may know of one.
The wooden prop provides far less flywheel than a metal one, and will therefore
stop windmilling at a higher speed. Likely the pilot slowed down when he had
difficulty, stopping the prop.
It is possible for an aircooled engine to seize when overheated, then unseize when
cool. This will likely be a piston to cylinder wall seizure and there will
be evidence of this on the cylinder walls. If the crank main bearings or big
end connecting rod bearings seized, the engine will likely stay seized.
We hate to hear of a Tailwind crashing, but we're glad the pilot escaped serious
injury.
Rick
N241SW
----- Original Message -----
From: Rogers
Subject: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight and
some related fuel questions
Fellow Listers
On its maiden flight, a Canadian-registered tricycle T-wind experienced an engine
stoppage shortly after take off and ended up on its back after a forced landing
in a soybean field. Test pilot had only minor scratches, but the plane is
close to being a write-off. Fuselage is in fairly good shape, and one wing seems
totally undamaged. Nose gear broke off and caused major damage to the other
wing. The dyna-focal engine mount hardly deformed at all and in fact broke the
attachment points off the motor case.
The owner is in the process of tearing down the engine but is already wondering
if fuel starvation may have played a role. The engine ran perfectly throughout
the take-off and only experienced problems as the test pilot pulled it into
a steep climb. He claims the engine ran rough for a few seconds and then stopped.
The wooden prop stopped windmilling almost immediately. Re-starting apparently
involved taking both hands off the stick--which he decided not to do at 150
feet off the runway. The pre-flight dipped fuel reading indicated about 3/4
full tank. I don't know how much head there was between the fuel tank outlet
and carb inlet.
Measured fuel flow with both the tail and the mains on the ground (don't know what
angle that represents) was 2 1/2 times maximum full throttle fuel consumption.
Questions:
Has anyone on the list experienced similar problems with the 0-300?
Is anyone flying a T-wind with the 0-300 WITHOUT fuel pump assist?
Does it seem likely that a wooden prop would stop windmilling that quickly with
the plane going 95 mph in a nose-high attitude?
The engine turned over freely post-crash. If the engine did seize in flight, is
it likely that it would unseize after the forced landing?
Any feedback greatly appreciated.
Roger
---------------------------------
My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter
10985 spam mails have been blocked so far.
Download free SPAMfighter today!
---------------------------------
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: | Public Thanks to George Turner |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Bruce E. Butts" <bbutts@columbus.rr.com>
George,
Seeing the photos you took of Jim Clement's latest creation reminded me
that I owe you public Thanks for the heads up on the Tailwind Fuselage
that was on EBAY this spring. I now have that very fuselage in my
garage! I wanted to be able to make Baraboo this year but work will not
allow, so I will try to find you at OSH to shake your hand, will be
there Thurs-Mon.
See you all at OSH!
Bruce Butts
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: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight |
and some related fuel questions
ouch!
Rick <rcaviate@infionline.net> wrote:I know there's almost no difference in the
C145 and O300, Cy, and so does everybody else here. Roger's question was about
fuel pumps on O300s, not C145s.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: cgalley
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Only difference is the crank in the O-300 has counterweights, Every thing else
is the same. Many C-145 have had the crank changed. It is mostly just an ID that
changed. Same Cert. E-253
Certification basis
CAR 13
Type Certificate No. 253 issued for C145-2 December 59 1947; C145-2H added April
1, 1949; C145-2HP added January 27, 1953; O-300-A added May 12, 1954; O-300-B
added September 27, 1955; O-300-C added February 24, 1959; O-300-D added June
1, 1960; O-300-E added April 3, 1963
So that all 170 before may 12, 1954 had to have C-145 301 cu in after that date
the probably are O-300 of 301 cu in. As I said before it is just mostly a difference
in Name.
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Yes, but that wasn't an O300.
----- Original Message -----
From: cgalley
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
All 1948 Cessna 170s had a fuel pump on the C-145.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight
and some related fuel questions
Rogers:
I don't know of any O300 powered Tailwinds that have experienced the exact problems
you tell us of.
Few, if any O300 powered anythings are equipped with a fuel pump. By far most of
these engines would have been on C172s, which had no fuel pump.
I doubt anyone on this group can put their finger on a Tailwind that has had an
O300 with a fuel pump, although there are one or two members who are obsessed
with such details that may know of one.
The wooden prop provides far less flywheel than a metal one, and will therefore
stop windmilling at a higher speed. Likely the pilot slowed down when he had
difficulty, stopping the prop.
It is possible for an aircooled engine to seize when overheated, then unseize when
cool. This will likely be a piston to cylinder wall seizure and there will
be evidence of this on the cylinder walls. If the crank main bearings or big
end connecting rod bearings seized, the engine will likely stay seized.
We hate to hear of a Tailwind crashing, but we're glad the pilot escaped serious
injury.
Rick
N241SW
----- Original Message -----
From: Rogers
Subject: Tailwind-List: Crash landing on Canadian Tailwind's maiden flight and
some related fuel questions
Fellow Listers
On its maiden flight, a Canadian-registered tricycle T-wind experienced an engine
stoppage shortly after take off and ended up on its back after a forced landing
in a soybean field. Test pilot had only minor scratches, but the plane is
close to being a write-off. Fuselage is in fairly good shape, and one wing seems
totally undamaged. Nose gear broke off and caused major damage to the other
wing. The dyna-focal engine mount hardly deformed at all and in fact broke the
attachment points off the motor case.
The owner is in the process of tearing down the engine but is already wondering
if fuel starvation may have played a role. The engine ran perfectly throughout
the take-off and only experienced problems as the test pilot pulled it into
a steep climb. He claims the engine ran rough for a few seconds and then stopped.
The wooden prop stopped windmilling almost immediately. Re-starting apparently
involved taking both hands off the stick--which he decided not to do at 150
feet off the runway. The pre-flight dipped fuel reading indicated about 3/4
full tank. I don't know how much head there was between the fuel tank outlet
and carb inlet.
Measured fuel flow with both the tail and the mains on the ground (don't know what
angle that represents) was 2 1/2 times maximum full throttle fuel consumption.
Questions:
Has anyone on the list experienced similar problems with the 0-300?
Is anyone flying a T-wind with the 0-300 WITHOUT fuel pump assist?
Does it seem likely that a wooden prop would stop windmilling that quickly with
the plane going 95 mph in a nose-high attitude?
The engine turned over freely post-crash. If the engine did seize in flight, is
it likely that it would unseize after the forced landing?
Any feedback greatly appreciated.
Roger
---------------------------------
My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter
10985 spam mails have been blocked so far.
Download free SPAMfighter today!
---------------------------------
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! --
|