Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (teamgrumman@aol.com)
2. 03:15 PM - For sale 1976 AA5B (Keith Wannamaker)
3. 04:42 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (923te)
4. 05:35 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (flyv35b)
5. 07:02 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (Ned Thomas)
6. 08:52 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (teamgrumman@aol.com)
7. 08:59 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (teamgrumman@AOL.com)
8. 09:11 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (923te)
9. 09:22 PM - Re: Re: AG5B Jaguar (923te)
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 |
|
Bill Scott's STC limits rpm to 2650 rpm. Same as limiting manifold pressu
re at sea level.
Ned, I talked to Ken yesterday about making a 10:1 -A4K. A 10:1 -A4K woul
d be limited to about 2550 rpm at sea level to make 180 hp. Limit with rp
m or MAP, it's the same result. A none ported and polished 10:1 -A4K will
make about 210 hp at 2700 rpm.
Ken would be interested in doing the development work if you're interested
. One of my customers is selling his plane, a 76 TIger with a mid-time en
gine, for $58,000. If you buy the plane and get the engine modded by LyCo
n, I can get Bob on board for the flight tests. Since you know what needs
to be done, you could work with Bob and Ken and perhaps duplicate the tes
ting done by Firewall Forward. I'll take care of the paperwork that I can
do and do the flight testing with Bob as the FAA rep. Sounds like a grea
t idea.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 6:57 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
You just have to know the tricks of working with the FAA.
In this case the trick is in how to word the certification. That is certif
y the 10:1 pistons in the Tiger by limiting the maximum continuous horsepo
wer to 180 by reducing manifold pressure and limiting maximum continuous
r.p.m. to 2700.
The 8.5:1 STC for the O-320 that Bill Scott has does it this way.
Then you would have to do similar proof tests just as Firewall Forward did
:
"The airframe and power plant certification testing involved engine dyno
runs to verify and document both H.P. and torque increases; engine detona
tion testing performed at sea level conditions by authorized FAA testing
facilities; engine oil cooling tests performed by the FAA at gross weight
, max rate of climb and an ambient temperature of 100F, engine propeller
vibration and increase torque compatibility testing performed by McCauley
Engineers in Dayton, Ohio; effects of torque increases on both spin entry
and recovery in all flight regimes, and engine out and airstart procedure
s evaluated for P.O.H. compliance."
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
True. It can be done. You can put 10:1 pistons into an -A4K. But.
You would have to re-certify first, the engine, then the airframe for
the additional horsepower, change the POH, come up with all new perform
ance data, reliability data, cooling data, . . . . . Is it worth it?
You tell me. I'll use your money to find out.
What I meant was, "the FAA would never approve putting 10:1 into an A4K
running at 2700 rpm without lots of money." Keeping the -A4K at 180 hp
makes all the difference in the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Two FAA certified examples of 10:1 pistons
1) The helicopter engine HIO-360-D1A which is rated at 190HP at 3200RPM
on 100/100LL with compression ratio of 10.00:1
2) Firewall Forward has STC'd 10:1 pistons in the Mooney and Cardinal
without RPM restrictions according to their representative spoke with.
http://firewallforward.com/horsepowerplusstc.pdf
Admittedly, these are not paraleel valve but are angle valve engines but
they do show that the FAA has approved 10:1 pistons at or above 2700rpm
----- Original Message ---
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Kevin,
The problem with running 2700 rpm, legally, with 10:1 compression in a
certified engine is that the FAA would never approve it.
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
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: | For sale 1976 AA5B |
2660TT 780SFRM
17-gal aux tank
Maintained by Gary Vogt
PDF of previous 3 annuals available
pics at http://jbarm.com/fly/
650.210.6574
$55k with fresh May annual
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 |
|
"Same as limiting manifold pressure" is true only for a fixed pitch
prop. We are talking about using a constant speed prop right?
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Bill Scott's STC limits rpm to 2650 rpm. Same as limiting manifold
pressure at sea level.
Ned, I talked to Ken yesterday about making a 10:1 -A4K. A 10:1 -A4K
would be limited to about 2550 rpm at sea level to make 180 hp. Limit
with rpm or MAP, it's the same result. A none ported and polished 10:1
-A4K will make about 210 hp at 2700 rpm.
Ken would be interested in doing the development work if you're
interested. One of my customers is selling his plane, a 76 TIger with a
mid-time engine, for $58,000. If you buy the plane and get the engine
modded by LyCon, I can get Bob on board for the flight tests. Since you
know what needs to be done, you could work with Bob and Ken and perhaps
duplicate the testing done by Firewall Forward. I'll take care of the
paperwork that I can do and do the flight testing with Bob as the FAA
rep. Sounds like a great idea.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 6:57 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
You just have to know the tricks of working with the FAA.
In this case the trick is in how to word the certification. That is
certify the 10:1 pistons in the Tiger by limiting the maximum continuous
horsepower to 180 by reducing manifold pressure and limiting maximum
continuous r.p.m. to 2700.
The 8.5:1 STC for the O-320 that Bill Scott has does it this way.
Then you would have to do similar proof tests just as Firewall Forward
did:
"The airframe and power plant certification testing involved engine
dyno runs to verify and document both H.P. and torque increases; engine
detonation testing performed at sea level conditions by authorized FAA
testing facilities; engine oil cooling tests performed by the FAA at
gross weight, max rate of climb and an ambient temperature of 100F,
engine propeller vibration and increase torque compatibility testing
performed by McCauley Engineers in Dayton, Ohio; effects of torque
increases on both spin entry and recovery in all flight regimes, and
engine out and airstart procedures evaluated for P.O.H. compliance."
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
True. It can be done. You can put 10:1 pistons into an -A4K.
But. You would have to re-certify first, the engine, then the airframe
for the additional horsepower, change the POH, come up with all new
performance data, reliability data, cooling data, . . . . . Is it worth
it? You tell me. I'll use your money to find out.
What I meant was, "the FAA would never approve putting 10:1 into an
A4K running at 2700 rpm without lots of money." Keeping the -A4K at 180
hp makes all the difference in the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Two FAA certified examples of 10:1 pistons
1) The helicopter engine HIO-360-D1A which is rated at 190HP at
3200RPM on 100/100LL with compression ratio of 10.00:1
2) Firewall Forward has STC'd 10:1 pistons in the Mooney and
Cardinal without RPM restrictions according to their representative
spoke with.
http://firewallforward.com/horsepowerplusstc.pdf
Admittedly, these are not paraleel valve but are angle valve engines
but they do show that the FAA has approved 10:1 pistons at or above
2700rpm
----- Original Message ---
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Kevin,
The problem with running 2700 rpm, legally, with 10:1 compression
in a certified engine is that the FAA would never approve it.
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis
t
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis
t
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Why? Reducing either will decrease horsepower. A manifold pressure
limitation would be better since you would be able to have full power at
altitude after the MP drops to the limit. So at altitude it would act
as a larger more powerful engine. Limiting RPM would limit you all the
way from the ground up. But limiting RPM with the governor setting is
easier to control and less likely for the pilot to CHEAT during takeoff
and climb with a CS prop.
Bill Scott limited RPM to 26r0 since that was the rpm that resulted in a
5% increase in HP. For the 180 hp that would amount to whatever
resulted in 189 hp.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: 923te
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
"Same as limiting manifold pressure" is true only for a fixed pitch
prop. We are talking about using a constant speed prop right?
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Bill Scott's STC limits rpm to 2650 rpm. Same as limiting manifold
pressure at sea level.
Ned, I talked to Ken yesterday about making a 10:1 -A4K. A 10:1
-A4K would be limited to about 2550 rpm at sea level to make 180 hp.
Limit with rpm or MAP, it's the same result. A none ported and polished
10:1 -A4K will make about 210 hp at 2700 rpm.
Ken would be interested in doing the development work if you're
interested. One of my customers is selling his plane, a 76 TIger with a
mid-time engine, for $58,000. If you buy the plane and get the engine
modded by LyCon, I can get Bob on board for the flight tests. Since you
know what needs to be done, you could work with Bob and Ken and perhaps
duplicate the testing done by Firewall Forward. I'll take care of the
paperwork that I can do and do the flight testing with Bob as the FAA
rep. Sounds like a great idea.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 6:57 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
You just have to know the tricks of working with the FAA.
In this case the trick is in how to word the certification. That is
certify the 10:1 pistons in the Tiger by limiting the maximum continuous
horsepower to 180 by reducing manifold pressure and limiting maximum
continuous r.p.m. to 2700.
The 8.5:1 STC for the O-320 that Bill Scott has does it this way.
Then you would have to do similar proof tests just as Firewall
Forward did:
"The airframe and power plant certification testing involved engine
dyno runs to verify and document both H.P. and torque increases; engine
detonation testing performed at sea level conditions by authorized FAA
testing facilities; engine oil cooling tests performed by the FAA at
gross weight, max rate of climb and an ambient temperature of 100F,
engine propeller vibration and increase torque compatibility testing
performed by McCauley Engineers in Dayton, Ohio; effects of torque
increases on both spin entry and recovery in all flight regimes, and
engine out and airstart procedures evaluated for P.O.H. compliance."
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
True. It can be done. You can put 10:1 pistons into an -A4K.
But. You would have to re-certify first, the engine, then the airframe
for the additional horsepower, change the POH, come up with all new
performance data, reliability data, cooling data, . . . . . Is it worth
it? You tell me. I'll use your money to find out.
What I meant was, "the FAA would never approve putting 10:1 into
an A4K running at 2700 rpm without lots of money." Keeping the -A4K at
180 hp makes all the difference in the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Two FAA certified examples of 10:1 pistons
1) The helicopter engine HIO-360-D1A which is rated at 190HP at
3200RPM on 100/100LL with compression ratio of 10.00:1
2) Firewall Forward has STC'd 10:1 pistons in the Mooney and
Cardinal without RPM restrictions according to their representative
spoke with.
http://firewallforward.com/horsepowerplusstc.pdf
Admittedly, these are not paraleel valve but are angle valve
engines but they do show that the FAA has approved 10:1 pistons at or
above 2700rpm
----- Original Message ---
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Kevin,
The problem with running 2700 rpm, legally, with 10:1
compression in a certified engine is that the FAA would never approve
it.
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis
t
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis
t
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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 |
|
The idea is to show the FAA that you are not exceeding the HP
certification of the engine. So put in 10:1 pistons and limit to
manifold psi that equals the previously FAA approved HP limit for the
engine. This is the route Firewall Forward took and were succesful
with in achieving FAA approval.
LAike you say Cliff if you limit by RPM you will get less Thrust.
Limit by MP pressure and you can still crank out the RPM up high.
This assumes a controllable pitch prop. AND most controllable pitch
props are most efficient at less than 2700 RPM more like 2400 - 2500
As I understand it. So the idea is to get rated HP at the most
efficient prop RPM
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2010, at 7:33 PM, "flyv35b" <flyv35b@minetfiber.com> wrote:
> Why? Reducing either will decrease horsepower. A manifold pressure
> limitation would be better since you would be able to have full
> power at altitude after the MP drops to the limit. So at altitude
> it would act as a larger more powerful engine. Limiting RPM would
> limit you all the way from the ground up. But limiting RPM with the
> governor setting is easier to control and less likely for the pilot
> to CHEAT during takeoff and climb with a CS prop.
>
> Bill Scott limited RPM to 26r0 since that was the rpm that resulted
> in a 5% increase in HP. For the 180 hp that would amount to
> whatever resulted in 189 hp.
>
> Cliff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 923te
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
>
> "Same as limiting manifold pressure" is true only for a fixed pitch
> prop. We are talking about using a constant speed prop right?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: teamgrumman@aol.com
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:03 PM
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
>
> Bill Scott's STC limits rpm to 2650 rpm. Same as limiting manifold
> pressure at sea level.
>
> Ned, I talked to Ken yesterday about making a 10:1 -A4K. A 10:1 -
> A4K would be limited to about 2550 rpm at sea level to make 180 hp.
> Limit with rpm or MAP, it's the same result. A none ported and
> polished 10:1 -A4K will make about 210 hp at 2700 rpm.
>
> Ken would be interested in doing the development work if you're
> interested. One of my customers is selling his plane, a 76 TIger
> with a mid-time engine, for $58,000. If you buy the plane and get
> the engine modded by LyCon, I can get Bob on board for the flight
> tests. Since you know what needs to be done, you could work with
> Bob and Ken and perhaps duplicate the testing done by Firewall
> Forward. I'll take care of the paperwork that I can do and do the
> flight testing with Bob as the FAA rep. Sounds like a great idea.
>
> Gary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 923te <923te@att.net>
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 6:57 am
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
>
> You just have to know the tricks of working with the FAA.
> In this case the trick is in how to word the certification. That is
> certify the 10:1 pistons in the Tiger by limiting the maximum
> continuous horsepower to 180 by reducing manifold pressure and
> limiting maximum continuous r.p.m. to 2700.
>
> The 8.5:1 STC for the O-320 that Bill Scott has does it this way.
>
> Then you would have to do similar proof tests just as Firewall
> Forward did:
> "The airframe and power plant certification testing involved engine
> dyno runs to verify and document both H.P. and torque increases;
> engine detonation testing performed at sea level conditions by
> authorized FAA testing facilities; engine oil cooling tests
> performed by the FAA at gross weight, max rate of climb and an
> ambient temperature of 100F, engine propeller vibration and increase
> torque compatibility testing performed by McCauley Engineers in
> Dayton, Ohio; effects of torque increases on both spin entry and
> recovery in all flight regimes, and engine out and airstart
> procedures evaluated for P.O.H. compliance."
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: teamgrumman@aol.com
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
>
> True. It can be done. You can put 10:1 pistons into an -A4K.
> But. You would have to re-certify first, the engine, then the
> airframe for the additional horsepower, change the POH, come up with
> all new performance data, reliability data, cooling data, . . . . .
> Is it worth it? You tell me. I'll use your money to find out.
>
> What I meant was, "the FAA would never approve putting 10:1 into an
> A4K running at 2700 rpm without lots of money." Keeping the -A4K at
> 180 hp makes all the difference in the world.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 923te <923te@att.net>
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 8:04 pm
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
>
> Two FAA certified examples of 10:1 pistons
> 1) The helicopter engine HIO-360-D1A which is rated at 190HP at
> 3200RPM on 100/100LL with compression ratio of 10.00:1
> 2) Firewall Forward has STC'd 10:1 pistons in the Mooney and
> Cardinal without RPM restrictions according to their representative
> spoke with.
> http://firewallforward.com/horsepowerplusstc.pdf
> Admittedly, these are not paraleel valve but are angle valve engines
> but they do show that the FAA has approved 10:1 pistons at or above
> 2700rpm
>
>
> ----- Original Message ---
> From: teamgrumman@aol.com
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
>
> Kevin,
>
> The problem with running 2700 rpm, legally, with 10:1 compression in
> a certified engine is that the FAA would never approve it.
>
>
> ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
> www.matronics.com/c
>
>
> ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> ttp://forums.matronics.com
> ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
> www.matronics.com/c
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
> www.matronics.com/c
>
>
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 |
|
no, I wasn't. lots of folks out there with -A4K and no CS prop.
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 4:46 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
"Same as limiting manifold pressure" is true only for a fixed pitch prop.
We are talking about using a constant speed prop right?
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Bill Scott's STC limits rpm to 2650 rpm. Same as limiting manifold pres
sure at sea level.
Ned, I talked to Ken yesterday about making a 10:1 -A4K. A 10:1 -A4K wo
uld be limited to about 2550 rpm at sea level to make 180 hp. Limit wit
h rpm or MAP, it's the same result. A none ported and polished 10:1 -A4
K will make about 210 hp at 2700 rpm.
Ken would be interested in doing the development work if you're interest
ed. One of my customers is selling his plane, a 76 TIger with a mid-tim
e engine, for $58,000. If you buy the plane and get the engine modded
by LyCon, I can get Bob on board for the flight tests. Since you know
what needs to be done, you could work with Bob and Ken and perhaps dupl
icate the testing done by Firewall Forward. I'll take care of the paper
work that I can do and do the flight testing with Bob as the FAA rep.
Sounds like a great idea.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 6:57 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
You just have to know the tricks of working with the FAA.
In this case the trick is in how to word the certification. That is cert
ify the 10:1 pistons in the Tiger by limiting the maximum continuous hor
sepower to 180 by reducing manifold pressure and limiting maximum contin
uous r.p.m. to 2700.
The 8.5:1 STC for the O-320 that Bill Scott has does it this way.
Then you would have to do similar proof tests just as Firewall Forward
did:
"The airframe and power plant certification testing involved engine dyno
runs to verify and document both H.P. and torque increases; engine deto
nation testing performed at sea level conditions by authorized FAA testi
ng facilities; engine oil cooling tests performed by the FAA at gross we
ight, max rate of climb and an ambient temperature of 100F, engine prope
ller vibration and increase torque compatibility testing performed by Mc
Cauley Engineers in Dayton, Ohio; effects of torque increases on both sp
in entry and recovery in all flight regimes, and engine out and airstart
procedures evaluated for P.O.H. compliance."
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
True. It can be done. You can put 10:1 pistons into an -A4K. But.
You would have to re-certify first, the engine, then the airframe fo
r the additional horsepower, change the POH, come up with all new perf
ormance data, reliability data, cooling data, . . . . . Is it worth
it? You tell me. I'll use your money to find out.
What I meant was, "the FAA would never approve putting 10:1 into an A4K
running at 2700 rpm without lots of money." Keeping the -A4K at 180
hp makes all the difference in the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Two FAA certified examples of 10:1 pistons
1) The helicopter engine HIO-360-D1A which is rated at 190HP at 3200RP
M on 100/100LL with compression ratio of 10.00:1
2) Firewall Forward has STC'd 10:1 pistons in the Mooney and Cardinal
without RPM restrictions according to their representative spoke with
.
http://firewallforward.com/horsepowerplusstc.pdf
Admittedly, these are not paraleel valve but are angle valve engines
but they do show that the FAA has approved 10:1 pistons at or above
2700rpm
----- Original Message ---
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Kevin,
The problem with running 2700 rpm, legally, with 10:1 compression in
a certified engine is that the FAA would never approve it.
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
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 |
|
The Mooney has a CS prop. There are a lot of things you can do with a CS
prop that you can't with a fixed pitch. Unless you are going to limit th
e 10:1 to planes that also purchase a $15,000 prop, the conversation makes
no sense. People out there just don't have that kind of money. I can pu
t a 10:1 engine together at top overhaul for $6,000. That makes a hell of
a lot more sense than trying to sell an MT prop at the same time.
Kevin opened the conversation when I talked about a derated 10:1 -A4K for
Tigers. How the conversation assumed a CS prop was included is beyond me
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ned Thomas <923te@att.net>
Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
The idea is to show the FAA that you are not exceeding the HP certificatio
n of the engine. So put in 10:1 pistons and limit to manifold psi that equ
als the previously FAA approved HP limit for the engine. This is the route
Firewall Forward took and were succesful with in achieving FAA approval.
LAike you say Cliff if you limit by RPM you will get less Thrust. Limit
by MP pressure and you can still crank out the RPM up high.
This assumes a controllable pitch prop. AND most controllable pitch props
are most efficient at less than 2700 RPM more like 2400 - 2500 As I under
stand it. So the idea is to get rated HP at the most efficient prop RPM
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2010, at 7:33 PM, "flyv35b" <flyv35b@minetfiber.com> wrote:
Why? Reducing either will decrease horsepower. A manifold pressure limit
ation would be better since you would be able to have full power at altitu
de after the MP drops to the limit. So at altitude it would act as a larg
er more powerful engine. Limiting RPM would limit you all the way from th
e ground up. But limiting RPM with the governor setting is easier to cont
rol and less likely for the pilot to CHEAT during takeoff and climb with
a CS prop.
Bill Scott limited RPM to 26r0 since that was the rpm that resulted in a
5% increase in HP. For the 180 hp that would amount to whatever resulted
in 189 hp.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: 923te
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
"Same as limiting manifold pressure" is true only for a fixed pitch prop
. We are talking about using a constant speed prop right?
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Bill Scott's STC limits rpm to 2650 rpm. Same as limiting manifold pr
essure at sea level.
Ned, I talked to Ken yesterday about making a 10:1 -A4K. A 10:1 -A4K
would be limited to about 2550 rpm at sea level to make 180 hp. Limi
t with rpm or MAP, it's the same result. A none ported and polished
10:1 -A4K will make about 210 hp at 2700 rpm.
Ken would be interested in doing the development work if you're intere
sted. One of my customers is selling his plane, a 76 TIger with a mid
-time engine, for $58,000. If you buy the plane and get the engine mo
dded by LyCon, I can get Bob on board for the flight tests. Since you
know what needs to be done, you could work with Bob and Ken and perha
ps duplicate the testing done by Firewall Forward. I'll take care of
the paperwork that I can do and do the flight testing with Bob as the
FAA rep. Sounds like a great idea.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 6:57 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
You just have to know the tricks of working with the FAA.
In this case the trick is in how to word the certification. That is ce
rtify the 10:1 pistons in the Tiger by limiting the maximum continuous
horsepower to 180 by reducing manifold pressure and limiting maximum
continuous r.p.m. to 2700.
The 8.5:1 STC for the O-320 that Bill Scott has does it this way.
Then you would have to do similar proof tests just as Firewall Forward
did:
"The airframe and power plant certification testing involved engine dy
no runs to verify and document both H.P. and torque increases; engine
detonation testing performed at sea level conditions by authorized FA
A testing facilities; engine oil cooling tests performed by the FAA at
gross weight, max rate of climb and an ambient temperature of 100F,
engine propeller vibration and increase torque compatibility testing
performed by McCauley Engineers in Dayton, Ohio; effects of torque in
creases on both spin entry and recovery in all flight regimes, and eng
ine out and airstart procedures evaluated for P.O.H. compliance."
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
True. It can be done. You can put 10:1 pistons into an -A4K. But
. You would have to re-certify first, the engine, then the airframe
for the additional horsepower, change the POH, come up with all new
performance data, reliability data, cooling data, . . . . . Is it
worth it? You tell me. I'll use your money to find out.
What I meant was, "the FAA would never approve putting 10:1 into an
A4K running at 2700 rpm without lots of money." Keeping the -A4K at
180 hp makes all the difference in the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Two FAA certified examples of 10:1 pistons
1) The helicopter engine HIO-360-D1A which is rated at 190HP at 3200
RPM on 100/100LL with compression ratio of 10.00:1
2) Firewall Forward has STC'd 10:1 pistons in the Mooney and Cardin
al without RPM restrictions according to their representative spoke
with.
http://firewallforward.com/horsepowerplusstc.pdf
Admittedly, these are not paraleel valve but are angle valve engines
but they do show that the FAA has approved 10:1 pistons at or above
2700rpm
----- Original Message ---
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Kevin,
The problem with running 2700 rpm, legally, with 10:1 compression
in a certified engine is that the FAA would never approve it.
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
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 |
|
So why was it that you thought it was a great idea?
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
The Mooney has a CS prop. There are a lot of things you can do with a
CS prop that you can't with a fixed pitch. Unless you are going to
limit the 10:1 to planes that also purchase a $15,000 prop, the
conversation makes no sense. People out there just don't have that kind
of money. I can put a 10:1 engine together at top overhaul for $6,000.
That makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to sell an MT prop at
the same time.
Kevin opened the conversation when I talked about a derated 10:1 -A4K
for Tigers. How the conversation assumed a CS prop was included is
beyond me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ned Thomas <923te@att.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com <teamgrumman-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
The idea is to show the FAA that you are not exceeding the HP
certification of the engine. So put in 10:1 pistons and limit to
manifold psi that equals the previously FAA approved HP limit for the
engine. This is the route Firewall Forward took and were succesful with
in achieving FAA approval.
LAike you say Cliff if you limit by RPM you will get less Thrust.
Limit by MP pressure and you can still crank out the RPM up high.
This assumes a controllable pitch prop. AND most controllable pitch
props are most efficient at less than 2700 RPM more like 2400 - 2500 As
I understand it. So the idea is to get rated HP at the most efficient
prop RPM
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2010, at 7:33 PM, "flyv35b" <flyv35b@minetfiber.com> wrote:
Why? Reducing either will decrease horsepower. A manifold pressure
limitation would be better since you would be able to have full power at
altitude after the MP drops to the limit. So at altitude it would act
as a larger more powerful engine. Limiting RPM would limit you all the
way from the ground up. But limiting RPM with the governor setting is
easier to control and less likely for the pilot to CHEAT during takeoff
and climb with a CS prop.
Bill Scott limited RPM to 26r0 since that was the rpm that resulted
in a 5% increase in HP. For the 180 hp that would amount to whatever
resulted in 189 hp.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: 923te
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
"Same as limiting manifold pressure" is true only for a fixed
pitch prop. We are talking about using a constant speed prop right?
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Bill Scott's STC limits rpm to 2650 rpm. Same as limiting
manifold pressure at sea level.
Ned, I talked to Ken yesterday about making a 10:1 -A4K. A 10:1
-A4K would be limited to about 2550 rpm at sea level to make 180 hp.
Limit with rpm or MAP, it's the same result. A none ported and polished
10:1 -A4K will make about 210 hp at 2700 rpm.
Ken would be interested in doing the development work if you're
interested. One of my customers is selling his plane, a 76 TIger with a
mid-time engine, for $58,000. If you buy the plane and get the engine
modded by LyCon, I can get Bob on board for the flight tests. Since you
know what needs to be done, you could work with Bob and Ken and perhaps
duplicate the testing done by Firewall Forward. I'll take care of the
paperwork that I can do and do the flight testing with Bob as the FAA
rep. Sounds like a great idea.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 6:57 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
You just have to know the tricks of working with the FAA.
In this case the trick is in how to word the certification. That
is certify the 10:1 pistons in the Tiger by limiting the maximum
continuous horsepower to 180 by reducing manifold pressure and limiting
maximum continuous r.p.m. to 2700.
The 8.5:1 STC for the O-320 that Bill Scott has does it this
way.
Then you would have to do similar proof tests just as Firewall
Forward did:
"The airframe and power plant certification testing involved
engine dyno runs to verify and document both H.P. and torque increases;
engine detonation testing performed at sea level conditions by
authorized FAA testing facilities; engine oil cooling tests performed by
the FAA at gross weight, max rate of climb and an ambient temperature of
100F, engine propeller vibration and increase torque compatibility
testing performed by McCauley Engineers in Dayton, Ohio; effects of
torque increases on both spin entry and recovery in all flight regimes,
and engine out and airstart procedures evaluated for P.O.H. compliance."
----- Original Message -----
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
True. It can be done. You can put 10:1 pistons into an
-A4K. But. You would have to re-certify first, the engine, then the
airframe for the additional horsepower, change the POH, come up with all
new performance data, reliability data, cooling data, . . . . . Is it
worth it? You tell me. I'll use your money to find out.
What I meant was, "the FAA would never approve putting 10:1
into an A4K running at 2700 rpm without lots of money." Keeping the
-A4K at 180 hp makes all the difference in the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: 923te <923te@att.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Two FAA certified examples of 10:1 pistons
1) The helicopter engine HIO-360-D1A which is rated at 190HP
at 3200RPM on 100/100LL with compression ratio of 10.00:1
2) Firewall Forward has STC'd 10:1 pistons in the Mooney and
Cardinal without RPM restrictions according to their representative
spoke with.
http://firewallforward.com/horsepowerplusstc.pdf
Admittedly, these are not paraleel valve but are angle valve
engines but they do show that the FAA has approved 10:1 pistons at or
above 2700rpm
----- Original Message ---
From: teamgrumman@aol.com
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: AG5B Jaguar
Kevin,
The problem with running 2700 rpm, legally, with 10:1
compression in a certified engine is that the FAA would never approve
it.
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis
t
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis
t
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Lis
t
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Gary,
In all your testing for the Jaguar Cowling did you happen to get before
and after manifold pressure data? If so, for the same conditions, is the
manifold pressure lower with the Jaguar cowl than with the factory
cowl? Seems apparent that you have slowed the airflow over the cylinders
ie dropped the pressure on top of the cylinders.....
Ned
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! --
|