Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:22 AM - Manifold pressure (teamgrumman@AOL.COM)
2. 03:44 AM - Re: Manifold pressure (FLYaDIVE@AOL.COM)
3. 04:47 AM - Re: Manifold pressure (flyv35b)
4. 04:53 AM - Re: Manifold pressure (flyv35b)
5. 05:55 AM - Tiger for sale (Dan Houseman)
6. 08:03 AM - Re: Manifold pressure (flyv35b)
7. 10:16 AM - Re: Manifold pressure (teamgrumman@AOL.COM)
8. 10:23 AM - Re: Manifold pressure (teamgrumman@AOL.COM)
9. 11:44 AM - Re: Manifold pressure (923te)
10. 02:20 PM - Re: Manifold pressure (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
11. 03:58 PM - Comcast Was Blocking Matronics Email Lists... (Matt Dralle)
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: | Manifold pressure |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500 feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
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: Manifold pressure |
In a message dated 10/29/2006 3:24:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
teamgrumman@aol.com writes:
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500 feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
===============================================
Gary:
Where is the manifold pressure being taken from for each gage?
What I'm thinking is: Since we know the poor configuration and fuel
distribution that the intake manifold offers, could it be this, that is showing
the
difference between your gages.
Then again they are only gages. Made by different manufactures and I believe
the JPI uses a transducer while the planes gage is a Boron(sp) Tube. Lots of
mechanical differences their also. There is also the scales range to
consider. What is the advertised accuracy of the each of the gages? Are the reading
differences between the gages within that accuracy range?
GAUD! I hate being so QA Analytical.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: Manifold pressure |
----- Original Message -----
From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
In a message dated 10/29/2006 3:24:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
teamgrumman@aol.com writes:
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500
feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet
on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
======================
Gary:
Where is the manifold pressure being taken from for each gage?
What I'm thinking is: Since we know the poor configuration and fuel
distribution that the intake manifold offers, could it be this, that is
showing the difference between your gages.
Then again they are only gages. Made by different manufactures and I
believe the JPI uses a transducer while the planes gage is a Boron(sp)
Tube. Lots of mechanical differences their also. There is also the
scales range to consider. What is the advertised accuracy of the each
of the gages? Are the reading differences between the gages within that
accuracy range?
GAUD! I hate being so QA Analytical.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: Manifold pressure |
Barry,
Read his email again. Both planes had JPI instrumentation and used the
same transducer in all likelihood. Also, they both indicated the same
MP on the ground. That sounds as if the instrumentation is NOT a factor
to me. At any rate I'd be willing to buy Gary's theory about the poor
induction system on the AG5B models.
BTW, it's bourdon tube. But I'm not sure if that's the type gauge the
AG5B used or not.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
In a message dated 10/29/2006 3:24:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
teamgrumman@aol.com writes:
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500
feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet
on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
======================
Gary:
Where is the manifold pressure being taken from for each gage?
What I'm thinking is: Since we know the poor configuration and fuel
distribution that the intake manifold offers, could it be this, that is
showing the difference between your gages.
Then again they are only gages. Made by different manufactures and I
believe the JPI uses a transducer while the planes gage is a Boron(sp)
Tube. Lots of mechanical differences their also. There is also the
scales range to consider. What is the advertised accuracy of the each
of the gages? Are the reading differences between the gages within that
accuracy range?
GAUD! I hate being so QA Analytical.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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 |
|
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "Dan Houseman" <danhouseman@charter.net>
Nice tiger for sale.
1976 Grumman Tiger N74429
Serial Number 0223
Audio Panel EDO-Aire AM550
Auto Pilot Century IIB coupled to Nav1 (KX155) or GX50 GPS Clock Davtron
811024 Vertical Card Compass
EGT/CHT/OAT- single cylinder
Intercom Sigtronics 4-place Stereo with music input
PTT on both yokes
GX50 GPS IFR approach certified with altitude encoder digitizer feed
Nav-Com #1 (with G/S) King KX155 & KI209
Nav-Com #2 EDOAire RT 563A (com works but nav inop)
Transponder King KT-76A with ACK A-30 encoder
Three-point strobes
New color matching cover from Ground Tech Corp
Oil consumption 12-15 hours per quart
Split nose bowl STC
Rosen Sunvisors
Sensenich Prop 76 EM 8510-0-63
Currently IFR Certified
All ADs compiled with
Hangared since 1997
2470 TTAF 620 SMOH
Compression 78/80 * 4
All logs
No damage history
Leather interior
Email for pics
Dan Houseman
636-561-2813
danhouseman@charter.net
--
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: Manifold pressure |
Disregard the last comment. None of the single engine Grummans ever had
MP gauges from the factory.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: flyv35b
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
Barry,
Read his email again. Both planes had JPI instrumentation and used
the same transducer in all likelihood. Also, they both indicated the
same MP on the ground. That sounds as if the instrumentation is NOT a
factor to me. At any rate I'd be willing to buy Gary's theory about the
poor induction system on the AG5B models.
BTW, it's bourdon tube. But I'm not sure if that's the type gauge the
AG5B used or not.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
In a message dated 10/29/2006 3:24:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
teamgrumman@aol.com writes:
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500
feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches
less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet
on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
======================
Gary:
Where is the manifold pressure being taken from for each gage?
What I'm thinking is: Since we know the poor configuration and fuel
distribution that the intake manifold offers, could it be this, that is
showing the difference between your gages.
Then again they are only gages. Made by different manufactures and
I believe the JPI uses a transducer while the planes gage is a Boron(sp)
Tube. Lots of mechanical differences their also. There is also the
scales range to consider. What is the advertised accuracy of the each
of the gages? Are the reading differences between the gages within that
accuracy range?
GAUD! I hate being so QA Analytical.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
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: Manifold pressure |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
I thought I made it clear that both planes have a JPI 800. Same
instrumentation. Same transducers. The pressure is being measured
from the fuel injection port on the #3 cylinder on both planes. The
length of tubing to the MAP transducer is the same.
-----Original Message-----
From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
Sent: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
In a message dated 10/29/2006 3:24:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
teamgrumman@aol.com writes:
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500 feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
===============================================
Gary:
Where is the manifold pressure being taken from for each gage?
What I'm thinking is: Since we know the poor configuration and fuel
distribution that the intake manifold offers, could it be this, that is
showing the difference between your gages.
Then again they are only gages. Made by different manufactures and I
believe the JPI uses a transducer while the planes gage is a Boron(sp)
Tube. Lots of mechanical differences their also. There is also the
scales range to consider. What is the advertised accuracy of the each
of the gages? Are the reading differences between the gages within
that accuracy range?
GAUD! I hate being so QA Analytical.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
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: Manifold pressure |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
I need a test AG5B to create an STC for a diffferent inlet. The same
(stupid) air filter and airbox will be used.
-----Original Message-----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
I thought I made it clear that both planes have a JPI 800. Same
instrumentation. Same transducers. The pressure is being measured from
the fuel injection port on the #3 cylinder on both planes. The length
of tubing to the MAP transducer is the same.
-----Original Message-----
From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
In a message dated 10/29/2006 3:24:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
teamgrumman@aol.com writes:
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500 feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
===============================================
Gary:
Where is the manifold pressure being taken from for each gage?
What I'm thinking is: Since we know the poor configuration and fuel
distribution that the intake manifold offers, could it be this, that is
showing the difference between your gages.
Then again they are only gages. Made by different manufactures and I
believe the JPI uses a transducer while the planes gage is a Boron(sp)
Tube. Lots of mechanical differences their also. There is also the
scales range to consider. What is the advertised accuracy of the each
of the gages? Are the reading differences between the gages within
that accuracy range?
GAUD! I hate being so QA Analytical.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
________________________________________________________________________
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Manifold pressure |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net>
I have one...how long do yu need it for?
----- Original Message -----
From: <teamgrumman@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
I need a test AG5B to create an STC for a diffferent inlet. The same
(stupid) air filter and airbox will be used.
-----Original Message-----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
I thought I made it clear that both planes have a JPI 800. Same
instrumentation. Same transducers. The pressure is being measured from
the fuel injection port on the #3 cylinder on both planes. The length
of tubing to the MAP transducer is the same.
-----Original Message-----
From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
In a message dated 10/29/2006 3:24:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
teamgrumman@aol.com writes:
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
Did an interesting test today.
2004 Tiger with a JPI 800. With Manifold Pressure.
My TIger, 1987 Tiger with a JPI 800.
Engine not running: both indicate the same manifold pressure
During a climb at WOT (wide open throttle) from 4000 ft to 6500 feet,
manifold pressure in the 2004 was 1/2 inch less.
Straight and level, WOT, MAP in the '04 Tiger was 7/10 inches less.
I've thought for a long time that the design of the carb air inlet on
the AG5B was stupid. Now I'm convinced.
________________________________________________________________________
================================================
Gary:
Where is the manifold pressure being taken from for each gage?
What I'm thinking is: Since we know the poor configuration and fuel
distribution that the intake manifold offers, could it be this, that is
showing the difference between your gages.
Then again they are only gages. Made by different manufactures and I
believe the JPI uses a transducer while the planes gage is a Boron(sp)
Tube. Lots of mechanical differences their also. There is also the
scales range to consider. What is the advertised accuracy of the each
of the gages? Are the reading differences between the gages within
that accuracy range?
GAUD! I hate being so QA Analytical.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
________________________________________________________________________
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Manifold pressure |
In a message dated 10/29/2006 11:04:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
flyv35b@minetfiber.com writes:
Disregard the last comment. None of the single engine Grummans ever had MP
gauges from the factory.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: flyv35b
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure
Barry,
Read his email again. Both planes had JPI instrumentation and used the same
transducer in all likelihood. Also, they both indicated the same MP on the
ground. That sounds as if the instrumentation is NOT a factor to me. At any
rate I'd be willing to buy Gary's theory about the poor induction system on the
AG5B models.
BTW, it's bourdon tube. But I'm not sure if that's the type gauge the AG5B
used or not.
Cliff
=====================================
Cliff, Gary:
I don't know why I missed that ... I was thinking two different instruments
on the same plane. What time did I send that email!?!? Major duh factor.
Barry
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: | Comcast Was Blocking Matronics Email Lists... |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers (Specifically Comcast Listers),
For about the last two days, Comcast was blocking incoming email from the Matronics
Email Lists because their spam filters thought the mail was spam. I was
able to finally get them to lift the block about 3pm PST 10/29/2006 and it appears
that people on Comcast are receiving List messages again.
If you are a Comcast user, you might want to email them and express your displeasure
with their Spam blocking policy, particularly as it relates to "matronics.com".
Sorry for the hassle...
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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! --
|