---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 09/27/10: 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:29 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:05 AM PST US From: Scott 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:08:55 AM PST US From: "Don Curry" Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:26:42 AM PST US From: "James Courtney" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:48:09 AM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B the cowling is in Lancaster getting a new inlet. ________________________________ From: flyv35b 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:26:45 PM PST US From: "Kevin Lancaster" 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:36:09 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B I found one. This is Larry's plane. ________________________________ From: Gary Vogt 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 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:40:56 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:40:59 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:41:48 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: TeamGrumman-List: AG5B Here is the fuel flow transducer on an AG. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:46 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:12:28 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: TeamGrumman-List: AG5B Here is Larry's engine just before the cowling went on. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 04:14:04 PM PST US From: "Kevin Lancaster" 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 14 ____________________________________ Time: 06:16:48 PM PST US From: "flyv35b" 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:29 PM PST US Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: AG5B From: "Hosler, John" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:53:55 PM PST US Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) From: "Hosler, John" 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 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 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 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/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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:17:18 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: The AG5B 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:28 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 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 >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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:29:59 PM PST US From: Gary Vogt Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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" =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 =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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:35 PM PST US From: "James Courtney" Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: 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 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 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 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 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message teamgrumman-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/TeamGrumman-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/teamgrumman-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.