Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:13 AM - Re: High Oil Temps (TeamGrumman@aol.com)
2. 01:30 AM - Re: High Oil Temps (TeamGrumman@AOL.COM)
3. 07:04 AM - Re: High Oil Temps (flyv35b)
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: High Oil Temps |
In a message dated 6/13/06 8:26:34 PM, bruce.smith@york.com writes:
> Gary,
>
> One other thing. Let me surmise that the FAA types said this with
> serious looks on their faces. Right?
>
> Bruce
>
Dead serious
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: High Oil Temps |
In a message dated 6/13/06 8:26:59 PM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com writes:
> Not to mention that they are just better in many ways, even though they
> don't have the FAA's blessing and haven't been tested as extensively.
>
I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Certified planes aren't tested
nearly as thoroughly as experimental airplanes. I can safely say there was no
testing done to optimise the engine cooling on the Tiger, Cheetah, etc, (or
most any other plane).
Case in point: Miley et al, in 1977, did a fine piece of experimental
research at Mississippi State regarding cooling inlet design. Look at any new
certified plane. With few exceptions, no one has incorporated any of the
results of that work. All they do is copy what was done before.
The FAA would like you to believe a lot of testing was done. If that were
the case, why are there so many new ADs on the new 172s? Didn't Cessna work
out all the bugs in the 40 to 50 years they built planes prior to the new
Cessna?
I think experimental built airplanes are made and tested a lot more just to
compete with certified planes. If an experimental plane crashes, the FAAs
response is, "See, experimentals are unsafe. We should require certification
for all planes."
PS, how many hours of experimenting do you think were spent optimizing the
LoPresti nose bowl? My guess is, none. Round inlets were added to replace
square inlets because everyone thought there was something magic about round inle
ts. The baffle seals on round inlets don't seal as well as they do on the
stock square inlets. A lot of attention to detail is required to even come
close to sealing the upper deck on a LoPresti nose bowl when compared to a stock
nose bowl.
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: High Oil Temps |
Gary,
I pretty much agree with everything that you have said here. But I
think you misunderstood what I meant about testing. The certified
aircraft have been pretty thoroughly tested, but that doesn't mean the
design or performance has been developed, optimized or even refined. It
just means they met some FAA standard. For instance, the cooling
probably only has to not exceed 500 F at a Vy climb at 100 F ambient.
Which is not the same thing as saying it is a good cooling system or
can't be improved upon. Far from it.
And yes, there is a lot of copying going on, even copying mistakes! But
also, you can't lump all experimentals into one category when you imply
that they are tested more or better designed or developed. There are
quite a few experimentals that are not well thought out or constructed.
The more well know ones like Van's RV's and the Lancairs are well
designed and very thoroughly tested and refined, probably even more than
certified aircraft except for the FAR Part 23 fatigue testing. In the
case of the RV's they have achieved the same level of confidence with
the thousands of aircraft flying hundreds of thousands of hours.
I don't think they are trying to just compete with the certified
aircraft, but rather take the performance, efficiency and affordability
to a whole new level. And this includes some pretty sophisticated
avionics and autopilots that are far cheaper that anything certified for
use in certified aircraft. I think right now about 10% of the fleet is
experimental aircraft. In 10 years it could be 20%. That's where
things are headed, especially if the FAA tightens the noose with their
ideas about aging aircraft safety, or lack thereof.
And if you were developing a new cowling for an experimental aircraft
you wouldn't be having to prove to the FAA that the magneto, fuel pump
and vacuum pump case temperatures were higher or lower than before you
improved the cylinder cooling!
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: TeamGrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: High Oil Temps
In a message dated 6/13/06 8:26:59 PM, flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com
writes:
Not to mention that they are just better in many ways, even though
they don't have the FAA's blessing and haven't been tested as
extensively.
I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Certified planes aren't
tested nearly as thoroughly as experimental airplanes. I can safely say
there was no testing done to optimise the engine cooling on the Tiger,
Cheetah, etc, (or most any other plane).
Case in point: Miley et al, in 1977, did a fine piece of experimental
research at Mississippi State regarding cooling inlet design. Look at
any new certified plane. With few exceptions, no one has incorporated
any of the results of that work. All they do is copy what was done
before.
The FAA would like you to believe a lot of testing was done. If that
were the case, why are there so many new ADs on the new 172s? Didn't
Cessna work out all the bugs in the 40 to 50 years they built planes
prior to the new Cessna?
I think experimental built airplanes are made and tested a lot more
just to compete with certified planes. If an experimental plane
crashes, the FAAs response is, "See, experimentals are unsafe. We
should require certification for all planes."
PS, how many hours of experimenting do you think were spent optimizing
the LoPresti nose bowl? My guess is, none. Round inlets were added to
replace square inlets because everyone thought there was something magic
about round inlets. The baffle seals on round inlets don't seal as well
as they do on the stock square inlets. A lot of attention to detail is
required to even come close to sealing the upper deck on a LoPresti nose
bowl when compared to a stock nose bowl.
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! --
|