Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:05 AM - Re: The AG5B (flyv35b)
2. 08:55 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Scott)
3. 09:08 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Don Curry)
4. 10:26 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (James Courtney)
5. 10:48 AM - Re: The AG5B (Gary Vogt)
6. 12:26 PM - The conspiracy to make Gary dislike AG5B's (Kevin Lancaster)
7. 12:36 PM - Re: The AG5B (Gary Vogt)
8. 12:40 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Gary Vogt)
9. 12:40 PM - Re: The AG5B (Gary Vogt)
10. 12:41 PM - AG5B (Gary Vogt)
11. 02:11 PM - Re: The conspiracy to make Gary dislike AG5B's (Gary Vogt)
12. 02:12 PM - AG5B (Gary Vogt)
13. 04:14 PM - Re: The AG5B (Kevin Lancaster)
14. 06:16 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (flyv35b)
15. 07:51 PM - Re: AG5B (Hosler, John)
16. 07:53 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Hosler, John)
17. 09:17 PM - Re: The AG5B (Gary Vogt)
18. 09:27 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Gary Vogt)
19. 09:29 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Gary Vogt)
20. 10:01 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (James Courtney)
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 |
|
You're working on an AG5B now. Why not just take a photo and post it?
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
I thought I had a pic of the hole. Guess not. I suggest you find an
AG5B and take a look.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 4:29:56 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
(2) The carb air inlet. ON THE BOTTOM OF THE COWLING? Even some sort
of NACA inlet, like the Cheetah inlet, on the left side would have been
better than just a hole. That's being fixed on the Project X Plane.
I thought the AG5B had an NACA inlet duct on the LH side with the air
cleaner attached to the cowling??
Cliff
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC w
ould be very straight forward
>
> Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC.
It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
>
> Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, li
mited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to abo
ut 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more p
otential.
>
>
>
> OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit
down?
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Why isn't a 200hp version of the IO360 an option? I thought I heard that
someone transplanted an IO360/CS prop out of a Cardinal with good results.
No?
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server=40matronics.com
=5Bmailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server=40matronics.com=5D On Behalf Of
Gary Vogt
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:31 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC
would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC.
It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop,
limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to
about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot
more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit
down?
____________________________________________________________
Send any screenshot to your friends in seconds...
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
TRY IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if2 for FREE
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC
would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the
STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop,
limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp
to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a
lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a
deposit down?
=========
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
=========
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
=========
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
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 cowling is in Lancaster getting a new inlet.
________________________________
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 6:02:36 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
You're working on an AG5B now. Why not just take a photo and post it?
----- Original Message -----
>From: Gary Vogt
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 6:21 PM
>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
>
>
>I thought I had a pic of the hole. Guess not. I suggest you find an AG5B
>and take a look.
>
>
________________________________
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 4:29:56 PM
>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
>
>
>(2) The carb air inlet. ON THE BOTTOM OF THE COWLING? Even some sort of
>NACA inlet, like the Cheetah inlet, on the left side would have been better
>than just a hole. That's being fixed on the Project X Plane.
>
>I thought the AG5B had an NACA inlet duct on the LH side with the air cleaner
>attached to the cowling??
>Cliff
>
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Listhref="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 |
|
| Subject: | The conspiracy to make Gary dislike AG5B's |
Hi Gary and friends,
I love AG5B's - they fly great, have highly capable modern avionics and
they smell good! The ones I fly most often have 500 or less hours on
them and are nearly new as aircraft ages go. They are well maintained
by True Flight and are beautiful. Kind of a blanket statement and not
necessarily true of all AG5B's - and certainly not so for all AA5's, I
admit so let's be fair. Do I despise AA's because some of them have
cracked cowlings (Grumman should have known that by 2010 that aluminum
would be showing wear) old radios and wiring behind the panel that looks
like.....say 1976? No that is a function of their place in time. In
this world of new media it is important to measure what is posted on the
internet as statements that the casual reader doesn't understand can
drive down the values of the entire legacy fleet and are used by
competitors of our brand as fodder for their sales department. It is
amazing how often the questions my team and I are asked at OSH and SNF
on a given year are fed to potential buyers by the competition and
reflect the latest "gripe" here or on the GG.
Gary, I hope you are to some degree just venting in your post below but
I still feel compelled to explain some of these issues as not everyone
who reads this list will understand your perspective. I'm not sure I do
- but I'd like to. You strike me as a logical thinker when it comes to
engineering. You may be too logical to accept the marketing directives
that drive some engineering decisions because buying decisions, for most
people, are not logic driven. This is an attempt to use humor to make
that point. A high risk maneuver, I know.
As I try to explain how some decisions may have been made, I must point
out that I was not part of the team that implemented any of these
changes but I think it is safe to assure you that none of the things
that you personally dislike were done to make your life more difficult
or to make the aircraft more difficult for you to maintain. Also
realize that in some instances changes were made in anticipation of
other future design improvements. You wouldn't believe some of the
former company memo's and drawings I have contemplating this or that
change to the Tiger - including the engine change you recently asked
about. Dave Fletcher likely has some of them too. Some I like - some
I don't but it costs big $ to make even a small change so it is safe to
bet that the changes that were implemented were all done for a good
reason at the time whether or not we agree with their logic. I recall
a discussion we had at OSH in '09 where you voiced that there were
unreasonable/counterproductive things you had to do to get your cowl
STC. Such is life in the world of certified aircraft.
Many issues are consumer driven....padding in the seats....rear seat
heat....all in response to customers who looked at brand X, Y, or Z and
said I want that in my Tiger. When the consumer demands it, the
consumer gets it or buys the other brand. When Jack brings Jill to look
at the plane she asks "how comfortable are the rear seats". Jack
doesn't care...he's the pilot. Jill thinks about the 2 munchkins that
will ride in the back and remembers that Sara cried the whole way from
Florida to Lake Michigan in their current plane because her feet were
cold. "Does it have heat for the back seats?" she asks..."it better".
In reality Jill only flies 4 times a year and the munchkins are only
there twice but it weighs on the buying decision as a major factor.
OOPS, we may aggravate Gary again but we sold more airplanes! One more
Tiger he gets to work on and one more chance for him to stay in business
before he has to start working on Mooney's - been there done that - Gary
the list of aggravations there is much longer!
Throttle quadrant - again market driven by flight schools planning to
buy numbers of aircraft that exceed a years production - one catch - we
want a quadrant. Sales dept response: "Done - you've got a quadrant.
Please sign here". Want a fleet without the quadrant - you can have
that too but we can't tool up for one's and two's.
Want a fiberglass cowl? Sorry the old one was aluminum and helped shape
the HERF (high energy radio frequency) data of the aircraft with which
the avionics are certified. If you want to make a composite one it
better be carbon fiber which is also conductive and more closely mimics
the signature of the metal one lest the latest avionics get interference
from the engine compartment - not good with the latest G1000 or next gen
wiz bang flyometer.
You surely already realize that ease of maintenance and simplicity are
only one dimension when decisions are made about the direction chosen.
If you truly understand Ockham's Razor you understand that simplicity is
only the starting point and a guiding principle - not necessarily the
end result especially after adding a heavy dose of government regulation
and the need to compete with other brands - not necessarily other
Tigers. Everything in aviation is a compromise between competing
ideals.
As you have experienced with your cowl project, even a FAA rep or DER's
interpretation of a seemingly simple rule can cause major deviations
from the plan that would be Ockham's choice. The AG was certified in a
very different environment than the AA and reflects that reality. Some
of your issues are only true on the earliest AG's so let's not paint
them all with the same brush. Some of your concerns are evident only on
poorly maintained aircraft such as brake fluid on the floor all the way
back under the spar ?? that's just sloppy maintenance.
I will try to address just one of your points to illustrate.
Was convenience the only consideration when deciding the location of the
wiring hole in the carry through spar? As you know, after manufacture,
drilling any new hole anywhere in the spar makes it unairworthy and
illegal to fly. You cannot even drill the AGAC hole in an early spar
without making it illegal to fly and I pity the guy who thought the spar
was a great place to mount his fire extinguisher with a couple of self
tapping sheet metal screws.
So do you suppose AGAC just drilled the hole in an inconvenient location
and smiled and said "great - that will really get Gary's goat in 20
years or so!" More likely, let's postulate that the folks at AGAC
approached the FAA with a plan to drill a new hole right in the center
of the spar - arguably one of the most critical locations on the spar
where the forces from the opposing wings are focused and the metal has
already been stressed by stretch forming to create the dihedral. Let's
see gravity works against lift and drag pushes rearward on the spar -
this calculation is getting more complicated...........
Can't we all imagine the group of engineers gathered.... all leaning
across a drawing where the only thing different is a new hole in the
spar.......OOOOO....what to do?? "We need data!" one engineer quips.
"Where are the forces most highly focused?" another asks. "What shape
should the hole be and do we chamfer the edges?" quizzes another. "We
should perform destructive testing" a fourth demands. Well, this goes
on for weeks (or months - Gary you know how that can happen, right?) and
it costs $ thousands $ and eventually, the hole has migrated to it's
current location - not to frustrate anyone but to satisfy the committee
that the spar strength has not been compromised. So much for the
production schedule and budget.
So why bother with the hole? Well, because someone citing Ockham's
Razor asked why in the heck are we running a conduit down the back of
the wing when we already have a great chase pipe (the spar) to run it
through?
In summary, True Flight is taking all these items into consideration. I
like simple. Really! I like working on Tigers and I don't like to skin
my knuckles so if we can reasonably make it simpler, better, and
certified, yahoo!! I agree with Gary. But to address the subject line,
there is no vast conspiracy to frustrate Gary, make the AG's harder to
maintain or less warm and fuzzy :-)
Clear Skies!
Kevin Lancaster
Former owner of '76 and '79 AA5B
Lover of AG5B's and AA's of all vintage
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't trying to get me"
Agent Maxwell Smart
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt
To: Teamgrumman List
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 4:34 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
Most of you know I'm not a big fan of the AG5B. All of the clean and
simple ideas that went into the AA5B have been bastardized. Yea, I'm
working on an AG.
(1) The seat bottom of the rear seat. WAY TOO MUCH PADDING. You
can't even put the seat bottom in it's cargo position without standing
on it. The corners have been padded when it sits on the braces on the
spar. Brilliant.
(2) The carb air inlet. ON THE BOTTOM OF THE COWLING? Even some sort
of NACA inlet, like the Cheetah inlet, on the left side would have been
better than just a hole. That's being fixed on the Project X Plane.
(3) The brake line inside the cabin. Why was a joggle put in the
brake line under the spar? Oh, I see, so the metal kick panels can
chafe on it. Gotcha. It was fine the way it was.
(4) Wiring from the panel to the back. This is a tough one. On the
AA5x, the primary path is along the console, up over the spar, under the
rear console, and to the back. On the AG5B, wires run along the bottom
on both sides. The biggest problem I have with this is brake fluid,
fuel, and water also runs along the bottom. I've seen a lot of oil
soaked/gummy wires on even new AGs.
I've done both on my planes, looking for an optimal solution. Not so
easy. In the latest iteration, the one I've used for the last 4 years,
I use my fiberglass armrests (see pics) for the wiring. The way the
side panels are installed, it makes maintenance (i.e., lazy avionics
guys) easy to get to the wiring. When I installed an S-Tec 30, I used
the pilots side armrest. I have Adel clamps that hold things all neat
and orderly.
(5) Fuses on the battery box. Five fuses. Really? Why? Oh, yea,
for ground operation so you can run the battery down before you go
flying. Gotcha. The reality is, this 'convenience' is something that
does more harm than good. Instead of getting the engine running and
warming up the oil, you sit there and run the battery down. If you
can't input the flight plan in the two to five minutes it takes to bring
the engine up to operating temperature, you are unprepared to go flying.
Go home. Start over.
(6) The decision to remove the airframe as ground for the electrical
system. I did a firewall forward restoration on an AG. After
installing the engine mount, battery and starter relays, battery box,
and new battery, I hit the Master Switch to check things out. Nothing.
WTF? I checked a lot of things and found there was no ground on the
master switch. Grounding to the airframe did nothing. Whatever. I
continued hooking things up, relocation wires, and suddenly, I had
power. One of the wires I ran to ground (on the engine mount) made
every thing come alive. I created a single point ground on the firewall
and ran all of the grounds to that point.
(7) Mounting the oil pressure transducer on the left side of the
firewall and running the oil pressure hose across the back of the oil
filter to get there. HELLO. McFly. Why not mount the transducer on
the right side of the firewall and use a 10 inch hose directly to it?
It makes maintenance easier also.
(8) The shunt on the firewall. WHY? How about cleaning up the
firewall and mount this inside?
(9) The throttle quadrant. Taking a very simple throttle quadrant and
making this about as complicated and maintenance intensive as was
possible doesn't make sense. Oh, except that now you can pretend you're
flying a bigger plane.
(10) Fiberglass console so you can have heat to the back seat. Let's
see, on the average no one rides in the back seat. BUT, for the 1% who
do, and do so in the winter, let's add 10 lbs to the airframe empty
weight and, while we're at it, make installation and removal difficult
too.
(11) Bondo on the sides of the fuselage to hide the bond lines. Yea.
Right. Let's add 100 lbs to the empty weight so that no one can see
that it's bonded together.
(12) The Cannon plug on the firewall. OK. There is some potential
advantage. Two separate wiring harnesses; one inside, one outside.
But, any changes, e.g., adding an engine analyzer, means drilling a new
hole. To add a wire to the Cannon plug requires installing those
connector pins to both sides. Look at the firewall on a 70's era AA5x.
That's how many wires are needed through the firewall.
(13) Using the spar to run the wires. OK, it's there, it's simple.
Put a connector at each end of the wing. Presto. BUT, how about
putting the hole on the front of the spar instead of the rear? Putting
it on the front eliminates running the wires under the spar. I took a
picture of wires trapped under the closeout under the spar but I didn't
bring the camera home to down load it. Here is another suggestion,
those wires that go into the spar, run them down the console like the
real Tiger and into the front of the spar. That totally eliminates the
wires running from the right side wall under the spar to the hole in the
back of the spar.
Ockham's Razor.
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 |
|
I found one. This is Larry's plane.
________________________________
From: Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:45:06 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
the cowling is in Lancaster getting a new inlet.
________________________________
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 6:02:36 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
You're working on an AG5B now. Why not just take a photo and post it?
----- Original Message -----
>From: Gary Vogt
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 6:21 PM
>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
>
>
>I thought I had a pic of the hole. Guess not. I suggest you find an AG5B
>and take a look.
>
>
________________________________
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 4:29:56 PM
>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
>
>
>(2) The carb air inlet. ON THE BOTTOM OF THE COWLING? Even some sort of
>NACA inlet, like the Cheetah inlet, on the left side would have been better
>than just a hole. That's being fixed on the Project X Plane.
>
>I thought the AG5B had an NACA inlet duct on the LH side with the air cleaner
>attached to the cowling??
>Cliff
>
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Listhref="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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There are
thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out there
that need 100LL.
I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded gas became
extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high compression engines.
Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh, my. There goes the muscle
car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage will go down because the timing needs
to be retarded in order to run all this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn government is
going to ruin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from the airports. The
sky is falling. The sky is falling."
Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded gas. So
does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology caught up to 1975.
I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And it
doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy Cruz.
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I don't
think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance standpoint. There is
a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved for the -B1E. It's heavier than
the MT, but costs less.
________________________________
From: James Courtney <jamey@jamescourtney.net>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would
be very straight forward
>
>Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It's
>heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
>
>Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited
>by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000
>feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
>
>
>
>OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit
down?
>
>
>
>==================================
>t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
>==================================
>ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>==================================
>http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>==================================
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
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 |
|
Kevin, if you're listening, here is a firewall on an AG. Move the shunt and
it's a lot cleaner.
________________________________
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here is the fuel flow transducer on an AG.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The conspiracy to make Gary dislike AG5B's |
Hi Kevin,
First of all, you had nothing to do with the AG5B morphisis from the AA5B.
Those comments weren't pointed at you.
I've heard a lot of arguments about, say, different ways to install baffles.
Some make maintenance more difficult without improving cooling. So, why not
think a little deeper into the subject and come up with a solution that doesn't
hurt cooling and makes maintenance easier?
I toyed with back seat heat in 1984-85. I built a sample mock up using the side
kick panels to act as ducting. On mine, the vent exited the forward kick panels
under the spar using a duct that looked a lot like a vacuum cleaner attachment.
It was 3/8 inch high and 12 inches long. I added a duct onto the existing
heater manifold and directed heat to the kick panels. A later version in 1988
used a one piece aluminum kick panel in the front that went from the firewall to
the spar. The entire front kick panel provided heat to the floor both front and
rear. That kick panel is still in that plane wherever it went. The rear seat
heat on the AG adds a lot of unnecessary weight and doesn't provide a great deal
of heat, evenly distributed to the rear seat foot well. On my Tiger, I used the
long arm rests to channel both heating and cooling to the back seats. All I'm
saying is, "Think about these decisions to change things and how they affect
everything else."
I did not say the hole in the spar was a bad idea. It's actually a good idea.
It certainly is convenient. But, getting the wires to the spar. Why not use
the previous method of going down the center console for those wires instead of
along the right side wall, under the spar, and then into the spar? Putting all
of those little plastic self-sticky clips in place only works for a short time.
Sooner or later, they fall off and then you're left with wires hanging down
where they get stepped on and damaged. All I'm saying is, "Think about these
decisions to change things and how they affect everything else."
Padding on rear seats is one thing. Not accommodating the utility factor in
being able to lay the seat down is another. You don't need 4 inches of padding
in the space between the seats . . . . other than for aesthetics. The corners
of the seat bottom do not need padding either. No one sits there. My guess,
and it's only a guess, some guys were sitting around and said, "Hey, let's
double up on the padding on the rear seat to make it LOOK more luxurious. I
spent a lot of time with the upholsterer in an attempt to make my rear seat as
nice as possible without detracting from utility and maintainability of the
seats. Come to California and sit in the back seat of my plane. My rear seats
are very comfortable. All I'm saying is, "Think about these decisions to change
things and how they affect everything else."
Why was the brake line shape changed (where it goes under the spar)? It chafes
on the rear kick panels. All I'm saying is, "Think about these decisions to
change things and how they affect everything else."
Cost is certainly a big issue when it comes to making changes. I would only be
investing in change of a previous design if it lead to better maintainability
and reliability. Spending money on comfort comes second.
And weight. Most of the decisions for changes on the AGs are for aesthetics and
market appeal. They only add weight, not function. And cost. The Tiger was
not intended to compete in the C-182/Mooney/Arrow category. The current AGs are
in the neighborhood of 1550 lbs. Weight hurts everything in the performance and
handling categories. My AA5B weighs 1432 lbs.
If an experimental version were available, I would use my carbon fiber canopy,
control surfaces, wing tips, and a host of other things and shoot for an empty
weight under 1400 lbs. It's possible. That would make the Tiger climb like a
home-sick angle on it's current engine.
You mentioned the decision to make changes because flight schools wanted this
and that. It's nice to be able to capture the training market, but, is that
your intended market? You are competing against flight schools buying LSAs.
Piper sold stripped down, no frills, Arrows without rear seats to flight
schools. Are the flight schools you want to sell to interested in buying
$250,000 luxurious, fixed gear, fixed pitch, carbureted planes with leather
seats and no bond lines? Just curious. I've never been involved with flight
schools beyond the ones here with 70's era 172s.
Thanks for listening Kevin.
________________________________
From: Kevin Lancaster <jkevinl@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 12:23:53 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: The conspiracy to make Gary dislike AG5B's
Hi Gary and friends,
I love AG5B's - they fly great, have highly capable modern avionics and they
smell good! The ones I fly most often have 500 or less hours on them and are
nearly new as aircraft ages go. They are well maintained by True Flight and
are beautiful. Kind of a blanket statement and not necessarily true of all
AG5B's - and certainly not so for all AA5's, I admit so let's be fair. Do I
despise AA's because some of them have cracked cowlings (Grumman should have
known that by 2010 that aluminum would be showing wear) old radios and wiring
behind the panel that looks like.....say 1976? No that is a function of their
place in time. In this world of new media it is important to measure what is
posted on the internet as statements that the casual reader doesn't understand
can drive down the values of the entire legacy fleet and are used by
competitors of our brand as fodder for their sales department. It is amazing
how often the questions my team and I are asked at OSH and SNF on a given year
are fed to potential buyers by the competition and reflect the latest "gripe"
here or on the GG.Gary, I hope you are to some degree just venting in your post
below but I still feel compelled to explain some of these issues as not
everyone who reads this list will understand your perspective. I'm not sure I
do - but I'd like to. You strike me as a logical thinker when it comes to
engineering. You may be too logical to accept the marketing directives that
drive some engineering decisions because buying decisions, for most people, are
not logic driven. This is an attempt to use humor to make that point. A
high risk maneuver, I know.
As I try to explain how some decisions may have been made, I must point out
that I was not part of the team that implemented any of these changes but I
think it is safe to assure you that none of the things that you personally
dislike were done to make your life more difficult or to make the aircraft more
difficult for you to maintain. Also realize that in some instances changes
were made in anticipation of other future design improvements. You wouldn't
believe some of the former company memo's and drawings I have contemplating
this or that change to the Tiger - including the engine change you
recently asked about. Dave Fletcher likely has some of them too. Some I like
- some I don't but it costs big $ to make even a small change so it is safe to
bet that the changes that were implemented were all done for a good reason at
the time whether or not we agree with their logic. I recall a discussion we
had at OSH in '09 where you voiced that there were
unreasonable/counterproductive things you had to do to get your cowl STC. Such
is life in the world of certified aircraft.
Many issues are consumer driven....padding in the seats....rear seat
heat....all in response to customers who looked at brand X, Y, or Z and said I
want that in my Tiger. When the consumer demands it, the consumer gets it or
buys the other brand. When Jack brings Jill to look at the plane she asks "how
comfortable are the rear seats". Jack doesn't care...he's the pilot. Jill
thinks about the 2 munchkins that will ride in the back and remembers that Sara
cried the whole way from Florida to Lake Michigan in their current plane
because her feet were cold. "Does it have heat for the back seats?" she
asks..."it better". In reality Jill only flies 4 times a year and the
munchkins are only there twice but it weighs on the buying decision as a major
factor. OOPS, we may aggravate Gary again but we sold more airplanes! One
more Tiger he gets to work on and one more chance for him to stay in
business before he has to start working on Mooney's - been there done that -
Gary the list of aggravations there is much longer!
Throttle quadrant - again market driven by flight schools planning to
buy numbers of aircraft that exceed a years production - one catch - we want a
quadrant. Sales dept response: "Done - you've got a quadrant. Please sign
here". Want a fleet without the quadrant - you can have that too but we can't
tool up for one's and two's.
Want a fiberglass cowl? Sorry the old one was aluminum and helped shape the
HERF (high energy radio frequency) data of the aircraft with which the avionics
are certified. If you want to make a composite one it better be carbon fiber
which is also conductive and more closely mimics the signature of the metal
one lest the latest avionics get interference from the engine compartment - not
good with the latest G1000 or next gen wiz bang flyometer.
You surely already realize that ease of maintenance and simplicity are only
one dimension when decisions are made about the direction chosen. If you truly
understand Ockham's Razor you understand that simplicity is only the starting
point and a guiding principle - not necessarily the end result especially after
adding a heavy dose of government regulation and the need to compete with other
brands - not necessarily other Tigers. Everything in aviation is a compromise
between competing ideals.
As you have experienced with your cowl project, even a FAA rep or DER's
interpretation of a seemingly simple rule can cause major deviations from the
plan that would be Ockham's choice. The AG was certified in a very different
environment than the AA and reflects that reality. Some of your issues are
only true on the earliest AG's so let's not paint them all with the same
brush. Some of your concerns are evident only on poorly maintained aircraft
such as brake fluid on the floor all the way back under the spar ?? that's just
sloppy maintenance.
I will try to address just one of your points to illustrate.
Was convenience the only consideration when deciding the location of the
wiring hole in the carry through spar? As you know, after manufacture,
drilling any new hole anywhere in the spar makes it unairworthy and illegal to
fly. You cannot even drill the AGAC hole in an early spar without making it
illegal to fly and I pity the guy who thought the spar was a great place to
mount his fire extinguisher with a couple of self tapping sheet metal screws.
So do you suppose AGAC just drilled the hole in an inconvenient location and
smiled and said "great - that will really get Gary's goat in 20 years or so!"
More likely, let's postulate that the folks at AGAC approached the FAA with a
plan to drill a new hole right in the center of the spar - arguably one of the
most critical locations on the spar where the forces from the opposing wings
are focused and the metal has already been stressed by stretch forming to
create the dihedral. Let's see gravity works against lift and drag pushes
rearward on the spar - this calculation is getting more complicated...........
Can't we all imagine the group of engineers gathered.... all leaning across a
drawing where the only thing different is a new hole in the
spar.......OOOOO....what to do?? "We need data!" one engineer quips. "Where
are the forces most highly focused?" another asks. "What shape should the hole
be and do we chamfer the edges?" quizzes another. "We should perform
destructive testing" a fourth demands. Well, this goes on for weeks (or months
- Gary you know how that can happen, right?) and it costs $ thousands $ and
eventually, the hole has migrated to it's current location - not to frustrate
anyone but to satisfy the committee that the spar strength has not been
compromised. So much for the production schedule and budget.
So why bother with the hole? Well, because someone citing Ockham's Razor asked
why in the heck are we running a conduit down the back of the wing when we
already have a great chase pipe (the spar) to run it through?
In summary, True Flight is taking all these items into consideration. I like
simple. Really! I like working on Tigers and I don't like to skin my knuckles
so if we can reasonably make it simpler, better, and certified, yahoo!! I
agree with Gary. But to address the subject line, there is no vast conspiracy
to frustrate Gary, make the AG's harder to maintain or less warm and fuzzy :-)
Clear Skies!
Kevin Lancaster
Former owner of '76 and '79 AA5B
Lover of AG5B's and AA's of all vintage
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't trying to get me" Agent
Maxwell Smart
----- Original Message -----
>From: Gary Vogt
>To: Teamgrumman List
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 4:34 PM
>Subject: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
>
>
>Most of you know I'm not a big fan of the AG5B. All of the clean and simple
>ideas that went into the AA5B have been bastardized. Yea, I'm working on an
>AG.
>
>
>(1) The seat bottom of the rear seat. WAY TOO MUCH PADDING. You can't even
>put the seat bottom in it's cargo position without standing on it. The
>corners have been padded when it sits on the braces on the spar. Brilliant.
>
>
>(2) The carb air inlet. ON THE BOTTOM OF THE COWLING? Even some sort of
>NACA inlet, like the Cheetah inlet, on the left side would have been better
>than just a hole. That's being fixed on the Project X Plane.
>
>
>(3) The brake line inside the cabin. Why was a joggle put in the brake line
>under the spar? Oh, I see, so the metal kick panels can chafe on it.
> Gotcha. It was fine the way it was.
>
>
>(4) Wiring from the panel to the back. This is a tough one. On the AA5x,
>the primary path is along the console, up over the spar, under the rear
>console, and to the back. On the AG5B, wires run along the bottom on both
>sides. The biggest problem I have with this is brake fluid, fuel, and water
>also runs along the bottom. I've seen a lot of oil soaked/gummy wires on
>even new AGs.
>
>
>I've done both on my planes, looking for an optimal solution. Not so easy.
> In the latest iteration, the one I've used for the last 4 years, I use my
>fiberglass armrests (see pics) for the wiring. The way the side panels are
>installed, it makes maintenance (i.e., lazy avionics guys) easy to get to the
>wiring. When I installed an S-Tec 30, I used the pilots side armrest. I
>have Adel clamps that hold things all neat and orderly.
>
>
>(5) Fuses on the battery box. Five fuses. Really? Why? Oh, yea, for
>ground operation so you can run the battery down before you go flying.
> Gotcha. The reality is, this 'convenience' is something that does more harm
>than good. Instead of getting the engine running and warming up the oil, you
>sit there and run the battery down. If you can't input the flight plan in
>the two to five minutes it takes to bring the engine up to operating
>temperature, you are unprepared to go flying. Go home. Start over.
>
>
>(6) The decision to remove the airframe as ground for the electrical system.
> I did a firewall forward restoration on an AG. After installing the engine
>mount, battery and starter relays, battery box, and new battery, I hit the
>Master Switch to check things out. Nothing. WTF? I checked a lot of things
>and found there was no ground on the master switch. Grounding to the
>airframe did nothing. Whatever. I continued hooking things up, relocation
>wires, and suddenly, I had power. One of the wires I ran to ground (on the
>engine mount) made every thing come alive. I created a single point ground
>on the firewall and ran all of the grounds to that point.
>
>
>(7) Mounting the oil pressure transducer on the left side of the firewall and
>running the oil pressure hose across the back of the oil filter to get there.
> HELLO. McFly. Why not mount the transducer on the right side of the
>firewall and use a 10 inch hose directly to it? It makes maintenance easier
>also.
>
>
>(8) The shunt on the firewall. WHY? How about cleaning up the firewall and
>mount this inside?
>
>
>(9) The throttle quadrant. Taking a very simple throttle quadrant and making
>this about as complicated and maintenance intensive as was possible doesn't
>make sense. Oh, except that now you can pretend you're flying a bigger
>plane.
>
>
>(10) Fiberglass console so you can have heat to the back seat. Let's see,
on
>the average no one rides in the back seat. BUT, for the 1% who do, and do
so
>in the winter, let's add 10 lbs to the airframe empty weight and, while we're
>at it, make installation and removal difficult too.
>
>
>(11) Bondo on the sides of the fuselage to hide the bond lines. Yea. Right.
> Let's add 100 lbs to the empty weight so that no one can see that it's
>bonded together.
>
>
>(12) The Cannon plug on the firewall. OK. There is some potential
>advantage. Two separate wiring harnesses; one inside, one outside. But, any
>changes, e.g., adding an engine analyzer, means drilling a new hole. To add
>a wire to the Cannon plug requires installing those connector pins to both
>sides. Look at the firewall on a 70's era AA5x. That's how many wires are
>needed through the firewall.
>
>
>(13) Using the spar to run the wires. OK, it's there, it's simple. Put a
>connector at each end of the wing. Presto. BUT, how about putting the hole
>on the front of the spar instead of the rear? Putting it on the front
>eliminates running the wires under the spar. I took a picture of wires
>trapped under the closeout under the spar but I didn't bring the camera home
>to down load it. Here is another suggestion, those wires that go into the
>spar, run them down the console like the real Tiger and into the front of the
>spar. That totally eliminates the wires running from the right side wall
>under the spar to the hole in the back of the spar.
>
>
>Ockham's Razor.
>
>
Message 12
| 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 |
|
Here is Larry's engine just before the cowling went on.
Message 13
| 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 |
|
Hi Gary,
This is a late model AG5B pic of the shunt - it is mounted where the
AA5B has the Voltage Regulator. The connections are now housed inside
an enclosure to clean up the look. This particular plane has the G1000
so you may notice a couple of extra fuse holders (intentionally not
hidden up under the panel) that are not on the earlier models.
I'm normally way behind on list reading but I'm listening as often as I
can - not always responding, but listening.
I hear it's really hot out in Cali today - say cool ;-)
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
Kevin, if you're listening, here is a firewall on an AG. Move the
shunt and it's a lot cleaner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their
old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2
blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and
noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb
thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I
think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with
10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously
have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no
problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and
BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine
would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier
to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of
100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel
will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There
are thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines
out there that need 100LL.
I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded gas
became extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high compression
engines. Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh, my. There
goes the muscle car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage will go down
because the timing needs to be retarded in order to run all this SMOG
stuff. The God-Damn government is going to ruin everything. I'll have
to go boot-leg fuel from the airports. The sky is falling. The sky is
falling."
Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded
gas. So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology caught up
to 1975.
I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And
it doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the
Chevy Cruz.
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I
don't think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance
standpoint. There is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved
for the -B1E. It's heavier than the MT, but costs less.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: James Courtney <jamey@jamescourtney.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The
STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for
the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed
prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics.
180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but
has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a
deposit down?
==========t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamG
rumman-List=====================
==============ums.matronics.com">http://forum
s.matronics.com====================
===============http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=========
=
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Listhttp://forums.matronic
s.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution No virus found in this
incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
Message 15
| 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 |
|
Nice.
________________________________
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Vogt
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 5:08 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: AG5B
Here is Larry's engine just before the cowling went on.
Message 16
| 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: | IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Maybe you guys should leave "well enough" alone. Flip Wilson 1971.
________________________________
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
flyv35b
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their
old blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2
blade on an RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and
noticed a really significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb
thrust. It is heavier than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I
think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with
10:1 CR without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously
have a fair amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no
problems with 100LL fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and
BSFC and be especially beneficial at high altitude where the engine
would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier
to get approved. The only real practical solution to the replacement of
100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on 100LL fuel
will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt <mailto:teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement.
There are thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged
engines out there that need 100LL.
I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded
gas became extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high
compression engines. Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh,
my. There goes the muscle car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage
will go down because the timing needs to be retarded in order to run all
this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn government is going to ruin everything.
I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from the airports. The sky is falling.
The sky is falling."
Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on
unleaded gas. So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology
caught up to 1975.
I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's
doable. And it doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the
technology from the Chevy Cruz.
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear,
but, I don't think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance
standpoint. There is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved
for the -B1E. It's heavier than the MT, but costs less.
________________________________
From: James Courtney <jamey@jamescourtney.net>
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Depending on available 100LL:-(
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a
little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM>
wrote:
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple.
Easy. The STC would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More
work for the STC. It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio,
constant speed prop, limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better
fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a
long process but has a lot more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be
willing to put a deposit down?
=========
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
=========
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
=========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
a
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 17
| 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 pic of the AG shunt had that box. Looks tacky. Looks like someone said,
"Where should this shunt go?" "I dunno." came the reply. "How about here.
This space isn't being used anymore." Never mind that there is no maintenance
ever required on it and it takes away from an otherwise clean firewall. There
is no reason that shunt needs to be there. I've installed a number of Mitchell
gauges and the shunt mounts conveniently in a number of places under the panel.
________________________________
From: Kevin Lancaster <jkevinl@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 4:10:00 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
Hi Gary,
This is a late model AG5B pic of the shunt - it is mounted where the AA5B has
the Voltage Regulator. The connections are now housed inside an enclosure to
clean up the look. This particular plane has the G1000 so you may notice a
couple of extra fuse holders (intentionally not hidden up under the panel) that
are not on the earlier models.
I'm normally way behind on list reading but I'm listening as often as I can -
not always responding, but listening.
I hear it's really hot out in Cali today - say cool ;-)
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
>From: Gary Vogt
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:31 PM
>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B
>
>
>Kevin, if you're listening, here is a firewall on an AG. Move the shunt and
>it's a lot cleaner.
>
>
________________________________
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Ken (Lycon) has done a fair amount of detonation margin testing so far. (word
is, at sea level, about 12:1 in the limit) The parallel valve engine is a lot
less susceptible to detonation and the Mooney guy in Colorado already got that
one passed.
But, you're right. It isn't going to be easy. The sad fact is, doing a 9:1
would cost as much as a 10:1.
________________________________
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 6:13:41 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old
blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an
RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really
significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier
than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR
without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount
of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least
and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at
high altitude where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1
CR might be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to
the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certified on
100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
>From: Gary Vogt
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:28 PM
>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
>
>
>It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There are
>thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out
>there that need 100LL.
>
>
>I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded gas became
>extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high compression engines.
> Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh, my. There goes the muscle
>car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage will go down because the timing
>needs to be retarded in order to run all this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn
>government is going to ruin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from
>the airports. The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
>
>
>Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded gas.
> So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology caught up to 1975.
>
>
>I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And it
>doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy
>Cruz.
>
>
>MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I don't
>think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance standpoint. There
>is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved for the -B1E. It's
>heavier than the MT, but costs less.
>
>
________________________________
From: James Courtney <jamey@jamescourtney.net>
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
>Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
>
>
>Depending on available 100LLL
>
>Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
>
>Jamey
>
>
>From:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
>
>Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC
>would be very straight forward
>>
>>Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC.
>> It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
>>
>>Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop,
>>limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp
to
>>about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot
>>more potential.
>>
>>
>>
>>OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit
>>down?
>>
>>
>>
>>==================================
>>t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
>>==================================
>>ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>==================================
>>http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>==================================
>>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Have you ever heard of Raymond Loewy? If not, you should do a little resea
rch =0Aon him. You have seen, and will continue to see, things he is respo
nsible for =0Afor the rest of your life. He was name THE Industrialist of
the 20th century. =0A=0AHis book: "Never Leave Well Enough Alone."=0A=0AI
have an original signed copy of the book. It was printed in 1951.=0A=0A
=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "Hosler, John" <JHOSLER@epri
.com>=0ATo: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, September 27, 2010
7:51:38 PM=0ASubject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A=0A =0AMa
ybe you guys should leave =9Cwell enough=9D alone. Flip Wilson
1971.=0A =0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AFrom:owner-teamgrumm
an-list-server@matronics.com =0A[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matro
nics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b=0ASent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:14 PM
=0ATo: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-3
60 B1E (180 hp)=0A =0AThe Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite impr
ovement over their old =0Ablades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and
have flown a 2 blade on an =0ARV-9A a day after changing from the older bla
de design and noticed a really =0Asignificant improvement in initial takeof
f and climb thrust. It is heavier than =0Athe MT prop but significantly ch
eaper and I think a better prop.=0A =0AI don't know if the FAA will issue a
multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR =0Awithout a lot of "detonation ma
rgin" testing. You obviously have a fair amount =0Aof experience with 10:1
CR with apparently no problems with 100LL fuel at least =0Aand that will n
ot only increase HP and BSFC and be especially beneficial at high =0Aaltitu
de where the engine would not be derated by limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR =0Ami
ght be much easier to get approved. The only real practical solution to th
e =0Areplacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all the engines certifie
d on 100LL =0Afuel will be able to operate on without any changes, such as
G100UL.=0A =0ACliff=0A =0A =0A----- Original Message ----- =0A>From:Gary Vo
gt =0A>To:teamgrumman-list@matronics.com =0A>Sent:Monday, September 27, 201
0 12:28 PM=0A>Subject:Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A> =0A>It
isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There are =0A
>thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out t
here =0A>that need 100LL. =0A> =0A>I've heard all of these arguments befor
e. In 1975 when leaded gas became =0A>extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No.
No more high compression engines. =0A> Catalytic converters. What will w
e ever do? Oh, my. There goes the muscle =0A>car era. No more fast cars.
Gas mileage will go down because the timing needs =0A>to be retarded in o
rder to run all this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn government is =0A>going to r
uin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from the airports. The =0A>
sky is falling. The sky is falling." =0A> =0A>Blah, blah, blah. Your Cor
vette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded gas. So =0A>does your Lexus. I
t's about time aircraft technology caught up to 1975.=0A> =0A>I've talked w
ith Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And it =0A>doesn't co
st an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy Cruz.=0A>
=0A>MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I
don't =0A>think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance standpo
int. There is =0A>a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved for the
-B1E. It's heavier than =0A>the MT, but costs less.=0A> =0A>=0A___________
_____________________=0A =0A>From:James Courtney <jamey@jamescourtney.net>
=0A>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com=0A>Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:
22:48 AM=0A>Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A>Depending
on available 100LLL=0A> =0A>Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten
things up a little?=0A> =0A>Jamey=0A> =0A> =0A>From:owner-teamgrumman-list-
server@matronics.com =0A>[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.co
m] On Behalf Of Scott=0A>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM=0A>To: te
amgrumman-list@matronics.com=0A>Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (
180 hp)=0A> =0A>Gary , I would think option 3 would be the best. =0A>=0A
>=0A>Sent from my iPhone=0A>=0A>On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <tea
mgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:=0A>Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch pro
p. Simple. Easy. The STC would =0A>be very straight forward=0A>> =0A>>Op
tion 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. I
t's =0A>>heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.=0A>> =0A>>Option 3:
IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited =0A>
>by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5
,000 =0A>>feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more
potential.=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>>OK, so, which option do you prefer? Woul
d you be willing to put a deposit =0A>down?=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>>==
=========0A>>t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrum
man-List=0A>>====================
================0A>>ums.matronics.com">http:/
/forums.matronics.com=0A>>================
====================0A>>http://www.ma
tronics.com/contribution=0A>>===============
=====================0A>> =0A =0A
=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List=0Ahttp://forums.ma
tronics.com=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A =0ANo virus found i
n this incoming message.=0AChecked by AVG - www.avg.com=0A11:40:00=0A> =0A
> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Te
amGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List=0A>=0A>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>href=
=============== =0A=0A=0A=0A
Message 20
| 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: | IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
I agree that the odds are that a drop-in replacement for 100LL will be found
(though I'm concerned and appalled at Continental's lack of interest in
pushing hard for that solution) but I also think that I'd be reluctant to
spend the kind of time and money required to get an IO-360-B1E + CS prop +
10:1 certified with the FAA until I had a clearer answer on the fuel
situation. I also think there's a very good argument for certifying the
unmodified IO engine and CS prop combo first and then following on with the
high CR modification thus separating the concerns of slightly increased
weight and the new fuel metering system from what amounts to a performance
tweak. If some regulator at some point decides they don't like the 10:1 CR
after all then you'll still have the 8.5:1 IO-360 + CS mod to fall back on.
You also might be able to get Lycon to do the lion's share of the STC
lifting on the 10:1 as a separate modification.
Godspeed to GAMI and Swift.
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
The Hartzell Scimitar blade design is a definite improvement over their old
blades. I have a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an
RV-9A a day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really
significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is heavier
than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better prop.
I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for an engine with 10:1 CR
without a lot of "detonation margin" testing. You obviously have a fair
amount of experience with 10:1 CR with apparently no problems with 100LL
fuel at least and that will not only increase HP and BSFC and be especially
beneficial at high altitude where the engine would not be derated by
limiting MP. A 9.0:1 CR might be much easier to get approved. The only
real practical solution to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that
all the engines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without
any changes, such as G100UL.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Vogt <mailto:teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
It isn't likely you'll see 100LL go away without a replacement. There are
thousands upon thousands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out
there that need 100LL.
I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975 when leaded gas became
extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No more high compression engines.
Catalytic converters. What will we ever do? Oh, my. There goes the muscle
car era. No more fast cars. Gas mileage will go down because the timing
needs to be retarded in order to run all this SMOG stuff. The God-Damn
government is going to ruin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg fuel from
the airports. The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on unleaded gas.
So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft technology caught up to 1975.
I've talked with Ken about direct injected engines. It's doable. And it
doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy
Cruz.
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I don't
think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance standpoint. There
is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been approved for the -B1E. It's
heavier than the MT, but costs less.
_____
From: James Courtney <jamey@jamescourtney.net>
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 10:22:48 AM
Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Depending on available 100LLL
Can you use one of the MT CS props to lighten things up a little?
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Gary, I would think option 3 would be the best.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Option 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC
would be very straight forward
Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC.
It's heavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.
Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop,
limited by manifold pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to
about 5,000 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot
more potential.
OK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to put a deposit
down?
==================================
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
==================================
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
==================================
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22%3ehttp:/www.matronics.com/contribu
tion> ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==================================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11:40:00
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matron
ics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
23:34:00
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! --
|