---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 10/29/06: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:22:37 AM PST US Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure From: teamgrumman@AOL.COM --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:44:02 AM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@AOL.COM 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:47:36 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:53:44 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" 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" ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:55:08 AM PST US From: "Dan Houseman" Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Tiger for sale --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "Dan Houseman" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:03:45 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:16:11 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure From: teamgrumman@AOL.COM --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:23:32 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure From: teamgrumman@AOL.COM --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:44:03 AM PST US From: "923te" <923te@cox.net> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Manifold pressure --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net> I have one...how long do yu need it for? ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:22 PM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:58:20 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Comcast Was Blocking Matronics Email Lists... --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: Matt Dralle 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