---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 03/28/09: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:27 AM - Re: EI vs JPI (Gil Alexander) 2. 07:21 AM - Re: EI vs JPI (flyv35b) 3. 07:44 AM - Re: EI vs JPI (flyv35b) 4. 10:36 AM - Re: EI vs JPI (teamgrumman@aol.com) 5. 05:36 PM - Re: EI vs JPI (Gil Alexander) 6. 06:22 PM - Re: EI vs JPI (Gil Alexander) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:27:48 AM PST US From: Gil Alexander Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I believe you can deduce what they used from their documents. The Lycoming Overhaul Manual Test Run section specifically calls for a 500F max CHT limit (table on page 9-2 of my 2002 version) and states that it is at the "Bayonet Location". Lycoming documents don't change too much over time...:^) ...and the reference to Bayonet says to me that they use a "Bayonet Probe" when they do certification runs. Older instrumentation in the 60's was MIL-Spec AN type that got replaced by the MS specifications - but remained basically the same part. I have a copy of the 1966 MS 90324 Specification "Thermocouple, Engine Cylinder, Bayonet Type" It is definitely a spring loaded device with a 2.5 pound spring force specification at a length of 2.5 inches. With the AN 4076-1 bayonet adapter, it is tested in a test fixture with a depth of 1.80 inches. Can someone measure the depth of a Lycoming CHT well - I bet it is 1.8 inches deep, or a bit less....:^) I say that the use of the word "Bayonet", along with the MIL-Spec standards from the 50s and 60s when our engines were basically certified say that it is a spring loaded device that physically touches the bottom of the CHT well. Sacramento Sky ranch has a probe picture here - http://www.sacskyranch.com/acatalog/86251.jpg The AN 4076 adapter picture is here - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/inmisc/28202.jpg I think it's all in the word "bayonet".... gil - the detective...:^) At 09:21 PM 3/27/2009, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: >I called Lycoming about 6 years ago and tried to >find an engineer who could answer that question. >=C2 It took about 5 'engineers' saying, "Well, >[fill in the blank] would know, but, he died." >before I realized all of the corporate knowledge >was gone. =C2 I researched it a bit and from what >I recall, probes similar to the EI probes were used. > >I also spent a significant amount of time about >20 years ago trying to find out which rocker >when where. =C2 As you may know, the intake rocker >and the exhaust rocker are different. =C2 IAs on >my field (Lancaster) and the folks at Lycoming >were NO HELP AT ALL. =C2 I finally found an >overhaul manual written in 1955 that described the differences. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard Mutzman >To: Team Grumman >Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 2:28 pm >Subject: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI > >I have been following the discussion with interest. >=C2 >One thing that I don't recall being addressed >(maybe Gary addressed in his article), is, for >the limits that Lycoming quotes, which probe did >they use for the testing.=C2 One that measures >the actual metal temps via conduction, or one >that measures the air in a well which is heated >by radiation from the hot metal?=C2 Hmmmm...conduction versus radiation? > >Richard Mutzman > > >---------- >Windows Live=99 SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online >storage. >Check >it out. > >or?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >p://forums.matronics.com >ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > >---------- >A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpg ID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62>See >yours in just 2 easy steps! > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:21:16 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I called Lycoming about 6 years ago and tried to find an engineer who could answer that question. It took about 5 'engineers' saying, =22Well, [fill in the blank] would know, but, he died.=22 before I realized all of the corpora te knowledge was gone. I researched it a bit and from what I recall, probe s similar to the EI probes were used. I would have guessed the other style (spring loaded) as that is what Alcor used years ago on their analog instruments before JPI or EI were even in ex istence. I also spent a significant amount of time about 20 years ago trying to find out which rocker when where. As you may know, the intake rocker and the e xhaust rocker are different. IAs on my field (Lancaster) and the folks at Lycoming were NO HELP AT ALL. I finally found an overhaul manual written i n 1955 that described the differences. The older engines had a small hole in the exhaust rocker arm that which was supposed to squirt a little oil through the valve spring and on to the val ve stem, if you can believe that. Bill Marvel discovered that an engine th at he had recently had overhauled by Lycoming had the intake and exhaust ro cker arms reversed and he had badly worn exhaust guides in a short time (le ss than 250 hrs as I recall). He wrote a letter to the president of Lycomi ng about it and they gave him a complete new engine. I think it was as a r esult of this that Lycoming then changed to use the same exhaust rocker arm on both the intake and exhaust - so they could not be mixed up by someone not paying attention. But there are thousands of the older style rocker ar ms out there in use still, probably many more than there are the later conf iguration. A much better solution was developed when the IO-540 engine in new Mooneys were wearing out the exhaust guides in 200-400 hrs and the owne rs where bitching so bad that Mooney put enough pressure on Lycoming to fin d a solution and not just blame it on operator technique! Same cylinder an d head as the O-360 engine uses but Lycoming never would admit they had a p roblem with any engine besides the specific Mooney model and they would not sell the parts for retrofit for other engines. But that's the attitude wh en the attorneys and bean counters are calling the shots. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: teamgrumman@aol.com To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:21 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I called Lycoming about 6 years ago and tried to find an engineer who cou ld answer that question. It took about 5 'engineers' saying, =22Well, [fill in the blank] would know, but, he died.=22 before I realized all of the corpo rate knowledge was gone. I researched it a bit and from what I recall, pro bes similar to the EI probes were used. I also spent a significant amount of time about 20 years ago trying to fi nd out which rocker when where. As you may know, the intake rocker and the exhaust rocker are different. IAs on my field (Lancaster) and the folks a t Lycoming were NO HELP AT ALL. I finally found an overhaul manual written in 1955 that described the differences. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Mutzman To: Team Grumman Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 2:28 pm Subject: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I have been following the discussion with interest. One thing that I don't recall being addressed (maybe Gary addressed in hi s article), is, for the limits that Lycoming quotes, which probe did they u se for the testing. One that measures the actual metal temps via conductio n, or one that measures the air in a well which is heated by radiation from the hot metal=3F Hmmmm...conduction versus radiation=3F Richard Mutzman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Windows Live=84=A2 SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out. or=3FTeamGrumman-List=22>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FTeamGrumman-List p://forums.matronics.com ution=22>http://www.matronics.com/contribution --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - The TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - =5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse =5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, =5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, =5F-= Photoshare, and much much more: =5F- =5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FTeamGrumman-List =5F- =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - =5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! =5F- =5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com =5F- =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - List Contribution Web Site - =5F-= Thank you for your generous support! =5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. =5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-=========================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Checked by AVG. 09 7:13 AM -- We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. The Professional version does not have this message ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:44:55 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I think you're right about this Gil. If so and if there really is a large difference between the temperatures measured by a JPI EDM700/800 and an EI instrument with the different style probes then it really does matter which =22system=22 most accurately represents what Lycoming measured and set the 500 F redline limit by and their statement that for long life the max operating temp should be 400F. If you believe that the JPI instrumentation most acc urately represents Lycoming's testing and that EI reads 50F lower, say, the n you should limit your continuous CHTs to 350F if you are using EI instrum entation. I'll bet there are many many Tigers out there that are unable to do this unless operated with excessively rich mixtures to get the extra co oling needed to keep the temps this low. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: Gil Alexander To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com ; teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:26 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I believe you can deduce what they used from their documents. The Lycoming Overhaul Manual Test Run section specifically calls for a 50 0F max CHT limit (table on page 9-2 of my 2002 version) and states that it is at the =22Bayonet Location=22. Lycoming documents don't change too much over time...:^) ...and the refer ence to Bayonet says to me that they use a =22Bayonet Probe=22 when they do cer tification runs. Older instrumentation in the 60's was MIL-Spec AN type that got replaced by the MS specifications - but remained basically the same part. I have a copy of the 1966 MS 90324 Specification =22Thermocouple, Engine C ylinder, Bayonet Type=22 It is definitely a spring loaded device with a 2.5 pound spring force spe cification at a length of 2.5 inches. With the AN 4076-1 bayonet adapter, it is tested in a test fixture with a depth of 1.80 inches. Can someone measure the depth of a Lycoming CHT well - I bet it is 1.8 in ches deep, or a bit less....:^) I say that the use of the word =22Bayonet=22, along with the MIL-Spec standar ds from the 50s and 60s when our engines were basically certified say that it is a spring loaded device that physically touches the bottom of the CHT well. Sacramento Sky ranch has a probe picture here - http://www.sacskyranch.com/acatalog/86251.jpg The AN 4076 adapter picture is here - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/inmisc/28202.jpg I think it's all in the word =22bayonet=22.... gil - the detective...:^) At 09:21 PM 3/27/2009, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: I called Lycoming about 6 years ago and tried to find an engineer who c ould answer that question. =C2 It took about 5 'engineers' saying, =22Well, [fi ll in the blank] would know, but, he died.=22 before I realized all of the co rporate knowledge was gone. =C2 I researched it a bit and from what I recall, probes similar to the EI probes were used. I also spent a significant amount of time about 20 years ago trying to find out which rocker when where. =C2 As you may know, the intake rocker and the exhaust rocker are different. =C2 IAs on my field (Lancaster) and the fol ks at Lycoming were NO HELP AT ALL. =C2 I finally found an overhaul manual wr itten in 1955 that described the differences. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Mutzman To: Team Grumman Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 2:28 pm Subject: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I have been following the discussion with interest. =C2 One thing that I don't recall being addressed (maybe Gary addressed in his article), is, for the limits that Lycoming quotes, which probe did they use for the testing.=C2 One that measures the actual metal temps via conduc tion, or one that measures the air in a well which is heated by radiation f rom the hot metal=3F=C2 Hmmmm...conduction versus radiation=3F Richard Mutzman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Windows LiveT SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out. or=3FTeamGrumman-List=22>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FTeamGrumman-List p://forums.matronics.com ution=22>http://www.matronics.com/contribution --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. =3Fredir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditre port.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3Dfebemailfo oterNO62=22> See yours in just 2 easy steps! =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - The TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - =5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse =5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, =5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, =5F-= Photoshare, and much much more: =5F- =5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FTeamGrumman-List =5F- =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - =5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! =5F- =5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com =5F- =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - List Contribution Web Site - =5F-= Thank you for your generous support! =5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. =5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution =5F-=========================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Checked by AVG. 09 7:13 AM -- We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. The Professional version does not have this message ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:36:45 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI From: teamgrumman@aol.com OK, but, it doesn't say what type probe, K, etc, or if it was grounded or no t. =C2- Lycoming documents don't change too much over time...:^) ...and the reference to Bayonet says to me that they use a "Bayonet Probe" when they do certification runs. -----Original Message----- From: Gil Alexander Sent: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:26 am Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I believe you can deduce what they used from their documents. The Lycoming Overhaul Manual Test Run section specifically calls for a 500F max CHT limit (table on page 9-2 of my 2002 version) and states that it is at the "Bayonet Location". Lycoming documents don't change too much over time...:^) ...and the reference to Bayonet says to me that they use a "Bayonet Probe" when they do certification runs. Older instrumentation in the 60's was MIL-Spec AN type that got replaced by the MS specifications - but remained basically the same part. I have a copy of the 1966=C2- MS 90324 Specification "Thermocouple, Engine Cylinder, Bayonet Type" It is definitely a spring loaded device with a 2.5 pound spring force specification at a length of 2.5 inches.=C2- With the AN 4076-1 bayonet adapter, it is tested in a test fixture with a depth of 1.80 inches. Can someone measure the depth of a Lycoming CHT well - I bet it is 1.8 inches deep, or a bit less....:^) I say that the use of the word "Bayonet", along wi th the MIL-Spec standards from the 50s and 60s when our engines were basically certified say that it is a spring loaded device that physically touches the bottom of the CHT well. Sacramento Sky ranch has a probe picture here - http://www.sacskyranch.com/acatalog/86251.jpg The AN 4076 adapter picture is here - http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/inmisc/28202.jpg I think it's all in the word "bayonet".... gil - the detective...:^) At 09:21 PM 3/27/2009, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: I called Lycoming about 6 years ago and tried to find an engineer who could answer that question. =C3=82 It took about 5 'engineers' saying, "Well, [fill in the blank] would know, but, he died." before I realized all of the corporate knowledge was gone. =C3=82 I researched it a bit and from what I recall, probes similar to the EI probes were used. I also spent a significant amount of time about 20 years ago trying to find out which rocker when where. =C3=82 As you may know, the intake rocker and the exhaust rocker are different. =C3=82 IAs on my field (Lancaster) and the folks at Lycoming were NO HELP AT ALL. =C3=82 I finally found an overhau l manual written in 1955 that described the differences. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Mutzman Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 2:28 pm Subject: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI I have been following the discussion with interest. =C3=82 One thing that I don't recall20being addressed (maybe Gary addressed in his article), is, for the limits that Lycoming quotes, which probe did they use for the testing.=C3=82=C2- One that measures the actual metal tem ps via conduction, or one that measures the air in a well which is heated by radiation from the hot metal?=C3=82=C2- Hmmmm...conduction versus radiation? Richard Mutzman Windows Live=84=A2 SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out. or?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List p://forums.matronics.com ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. ?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D6680 72%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62"> See yours in just 2 easy steps! 0 --> http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:36:02 PM PST US From: Gil Alexander Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI Yep... but doesn't Lycoming really set 450F as a "Climb out" redline in their later "making your engine last" documents? The 400F number is a max cruise temp..... gil A At 07:42 AM 3/28/2009, flyv35b wrote: >I think you're right about this Gil. If so and >if there really is a large difference between >the temperatures measured by a JPI EDM700/800 >and an EI instrument with the different style >probes then it really does matter which "system" >most accurately represents what Lycoming >measured and set the 500F redline limit by and >their statement that for long life the max >operating temp should be 400F. If you believe >that the JPI instrumentation most accurately >represents Lycoming's testing and that EI reads >50F lower, say, then you should limit your >continuous CHTs to 350F if you are using EI >instrumentation. I'll bet there are many many >Tigers out there that are unable to do this >unless operated with excessively rich mixtures >to get the extra cooling needed to keep the temps this low. > >Cliff >----- Original Message ----- >From: Gil Alexander >To: >teamgrumman-list@matronics.com >; teamgrumman-list@matronics.com >Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:26 AM >Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI > >I believe you can deduce what they used from their documents. > >The Lycoming Overhaul Manual Test Run section >specifically calls for a 500F max CHT limit >(table on page 9-2 of my 2002 version) and >states that it is at the "Bayonet Location". > >Lycoming documents don't change too much over >time...:^) ...and the reference to Bayonet says >to me that they use a "Bayonet Probe" when they do certification runs. > >Older instrumentation in the 60's was MIL-Spec >AN type that got replaced by the MS >specifications - but remained basically the same part. > >I have a copy of the 1966 MS 90324 >Specification "Thermocouple, Engine Cylinder, Bayonet Type" > >It is definitely a spring loaded device with a >2.5 pound spring force specification at a length >of 2.5 inches. With the AN 4076-1 bayonet >adapter, it is tested in a test fixture with a depth of 1.80 inches. > >Can someone measure the depth of a Lycoming CHT >well - I bet it is 1.8 inches deep, or a bit less....:^) > >I say that the use of the word "Bayonet", along >with the MIL-Spec standards from the 50s and 60s >when our engines were basically certified say >that it is a spring loaded device that >physically touches the bottom of the CHT well. > >Sacramento Sky ranch has a probe picture here - > >http://www.sacskyranch.com/acatalog/86251.jpg > >The AN 4076 adapter picture is here - > >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/inmisc/28202.jpg > >I think it's all in the word "bayonet".... > >gil - the detective...:^) > > >At 09:21 PM 3/27/2009, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: >>I called Lycoming about 6 years ago and tried >>to find an engineer who could answer that >>question. =C2 It took about 5 'engineers' saying, >>"Well, [fill in the blank] would know, but, he >>died." before I realized all of the corporate >>knowledge was gone. =C2 I researched it a bit and >>from what I recall, probes similar to the EI probes were used. >> >>I also spent a significant amount of time about >>20 years ago trying to find out which rocker >>when where. =C2 As you may know, the intake >>rocker and the exhaust rocker are different. =C2 >>IAs on my field (Lancaster) and the folks at >>Lycoming were NO HELP AT ALL. =C2 I finally found >>an overhaul manual written in 1955 that described the differences. >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Richard Mutzman >>To: Team Grumman >>Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 2:28 pm >>Subject: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI >> >>I have been following the discussion with interest. >>=C2 >>One thing that I don't recall being addressed >>(maybe Gary addressed in his article), is, for >>the limits that Lycoming quotes, which probe >>did they use for the testing.=C2 One that >>measures the actual metal temps via conduction, >>or one that measures the air in a well which is >>heated by radiation from the hot metal?=C2 Hmmmm...conduction versus radiation? >> >>Richard Mutzman >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>Windows Live=99 SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free >>online storage. >>Check >>it out. >> >> >> >>or?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >> >>p://forums.matronics.com >> >>ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> >> >>---------- >>A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. >>?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D66 8072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62"> >>See yours in just 2 easy steps! > > >http://www.matronics.c om/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List > > >http://www.matronics.com/contributio n > > >---------- >3/27/2009 7:13 AM > > >---------- >I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. >We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:22:39 PM PST US From: Gil Alexander Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI Gary ....Not really relevant to the discussion. The debate is "Did the original Lycoming certification probe touch the sell of the cylinder?" The MS90324 specification defines a Type J thermocouple (iron-constantan) that is ungrounded and has a 0.025 ohm resistance, and does touch the base of the cylinder well. This the only Mil-Spec engine CHT thermocouple probe listed. I'm sure Lycoming would have used the MS part (or it's earlier AN5541 equivalent) Alcor think the bayonet type are better - from their STC -------------------------------------- Spring loaded bayonet types are more accurate than simple screw in types because the probe touches the bottom of the thermowell and senses metal rather than air temperature. -------------------------------------- ....and, no surprise, the Alcor bayonet probe is type J and has the same resistance as the old MS90324 specification. If you want to know lots of details on thermocouples, including a DIY sensor, this is interesting.... http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf gil A At 10:32 AM 3/28/2009, you wrote: >OK, but, it doesn't say what type probe, K, etc, >or if it was grounded or not. =C2 >Lycoming documents don't change too much over >time...:^) ...and the reference to Bayonet says >to me that they use a "Bayonet Probe" when they do certification runs. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gil Alexander >To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com; teamgrumman-list@matronics.com >Sent: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:26 am >Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI > >I believe you can deduce what they used from their documents. > >The Lycoming Overhaul Manual Test Run section >specifically calls for a 500F max CHT limit >(table on page 9-2 of my 2002 version) and >states that it is at the "Bayonet Location". > >Lycoming documents don't change too much over >time...:^) ...and the reference to Bayonet says >to me that they use a "Bayonet Probe" when they do certification runs. > >Older instrumentation in the 60's was MIL-Spec >AN type that got replaced by the MS >specifications - but remained basically the same part. > >I have a copy of the 1966=C2 MS 90324 >Specification "Thermocouple, Engine Cylinder, Bayonet Type" > >It is definitely a spring loaded device with a >2.5 pound spring force specification at a length >of 2.5 inches.=C2 With the AN 4076-1 bayonet >adapter, it is tested in a test fixture with a depth of 1.80 inche s. > >Can someone measure the depth of a Lycoming CHT >well - I bet it is 1.8 inches deep, or a bit less....:^) > >I say that the use of the word "Bayonet", along >with the MIL-Spec standards from the 50s and 60s >when our engines were basically certified say >that it is a spring loaded device that >physically touches the bottom of the CHT well. > >Sacramento Sky ranch has a probe picture here - > >http://www.sacskyranch.com/a catalog/86251.jpg > >The AN 4076 adapter picture is here - > >http://www. aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/inmisc/28202.jpg > >I think it's all in the word "bayonet".... > >gil - the detective...:^) > > >At 09:21 PM 3/27/2009, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: >>I called Lycoming about 6 years ago and tried >>to find an engineer who could answer that >>question. =C3=82 It took about 5 'engineers' >>saying, "Well, [fill in the blank] would know, >>but, he died." before I realized all of the >>corporate knowledge was gone. =C3=82 I researched >>it a bit and from what I recall, probes similar to the EI probes were used. >> >>I also spent a significant amount of time about >>20 years ago trying to find out which rocker >>when where. =C3=82 As you may know, the intake >>rocker and the exhaust rocker are different. =C3=82 >>IAs on my field (Lancaster) and the folks at >>Lycoming were NO HELP AT ALL. =C3=82 I finally >>found an overhaul manual written in 1955 that described the differences. >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Richard Mutzman <rcmutz@msn.com> >>To: Team Grumman >><teamgrumman-list@matronics.com> >>Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 2:28 pm >>Subject: TeamGrumman-List: EI vs JPI >> >>I have been following the discussion with interest. >>=C3=82 >>One thing that I don't recall being addressed >>(maybe Gary addressed in his article), is, for >>the limits that Lycoming quotes, which probe >>did they use for the testing.=C3=82=C2 One that >>measures the actual metal temps via conduction, >>or one that measures the air in a well which is >>heated by radiation from the hot >>metal?=C3=82=C2 Hmmmm...conduction versus radiation? >> >>Richard Mutzman >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>Windows Live=99 SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free >>online storage. >>Check >>it out. >> >>or?TeamGrumman-List"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >>p://forums.matronics.com >>ution">http://www.matronics.com/con tribution >> >> >> >>---------- >>A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. >>?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fde >>fault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62"> >>See yours in just 2 easy steps! > > >or?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List >p://forums.matronics.com >ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut >ion > > >---------- >A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpg ID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62>See >yours in just 2 easy steps! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message teamgrumman-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/TeamGrumman-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/teamgrumman-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.