Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:40 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (flyv35b)
2. 06:41 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Lawrence Massaro)
3. 10:14 AM - Re: Saturday Grumman Fly-In to Payson, Arizona (teamgrumman@AOL.COM)
4. 10:37 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Gary Vogt)
5. 11:08 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (James Courtney)
6. 11:09 AM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Gary Vogt)
7. 02:24 PM - convention prefly (Wes Chapman)
8. 02:32 PM - Re: convention prefly (Linn Walters)
9. 07:02 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (lmassaro)
10. 08:27 PM - Re: convention prefly (Gary Vogt)
11. 08:37 PM - Re: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Gary Vogt)
12. 08:45 PM - Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) (Gary Vogt)
13. 10:04 PM - Project X plane pics (Gary Vogt)
14. 10:06 PM - Project X plane (Gary Vogt)
15. 10:10 PM - New customers plane. Complained his brakes didn't work. (Gary Vogt)
16. 10:11 PM - Project X Plane (Gary Vogt)
17. 11:04 PM - Re: New customers plane. Complained his brakes didn't work. (Brian Hausknecht)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
I have to agree with your comments, Jamey. Do the basic installation
first, which would simplify the approval process especially if the very
engine model, IO-360-B1E, has already been approved with the Hartzell
Scimitar prop. Most people would be satisfied with the increased
performance of this combo, i.e, much improved takeoff and ROC, better
fuel economy at cruise, lower noise level there and I think, increased
engine durability.* A 10:1 CR STC'd mod to this original combo could be
added later on possibly if there were enough demand from the purists
that want the ultimate performance. Personally, I think an ignition
system modification with at least a partial electronic ignition or maybe
even completely electronic with a backup battery would be more
beneficial in improving fuel efficiency. There still needs to be some
more development work here. We both know that increasing the CR AND
adding an electronic fuel injection would be even more beneficial in
improving performance and reducing fuel consumption, particularly at
high cruise altitudes. Putting the engine on the dyno at Ada, Oklahoma
with the 10:1 CR and electronic FI would be very informative and
beneficial in optimizing such a system.
BTW, Ken (Lycon) has been trying to get a 10:1 CR piston STC'd for the
IO-550 Continental engine for years now and still hasn't got there.
* As a side note, Bill Marvel who owned a Tiger for 25 years had a lot
of experience with rapid exhaust valve guide wear, to the point of
loosing compression and replacing cylinders as low as 250 hrs on a
regular basis. He felt that his particular mission of long distance
flights at altitude and operation at redline most of the time aggravated
this. Climbing out from a 5000 ft msl altitude airport after a fuel
stop where the engine compartment heat soaks and then having to operate
with a leaned out mixture places a heavy heat load on the cylinders
during the subsequent climb. At any rate, he now flys an RV-8A with the
same engine with a CS prop and tighter more restrictive baffling and has
had NO guide or valve problems in 10 years and over a 1000 hrs. The
main difference is cruise is still at full throttle but at 2300 rpm
instead of 2700 rpm. And If you fly a CS prop you probably have noticed
that just increasing the rpm by only100 rpm with no throttle or mixture
changes will increase the EGT a significant amount. There must be some
correlation here. Another point of interest, installing a single
electronic ignition (one magneto retained) reduced fuel consumption
about 1 gph at high altitude cruise conditions.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: James Courtney
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:45 PM
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
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
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?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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.co
m">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on">http://www.matronics.com/c
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
23:34:00
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) |
> From: Gary Vogt<teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM>
> 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?
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for
are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes manufactured
in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing,
and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if
ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLC AGs, it should have been fuel injection.
Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your
already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be
more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get
my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent flown
complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) ,
and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that
a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for something
they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance gain?
From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the higher
compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher power,
better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add
in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would
be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability
to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to
get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above". I'm
an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a passion
for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife definitely
has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my desires
for Option 3
would not be the in the majority.
Larry M
'92 AG-5B KRNM
'91 AG-5B KAUN (Project X)
--
Lawrence Massaro
Tactical Engineering& Analysis, Inc.
6050 Santo Road
Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92124
858 573 9869 x106 (o)
858 573 9874 (f)
858 354 9964 (c)
Primary email: lmassaro@tac-eng.com
Secondary emailpay: lawrence.massaro@us.army.mil
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: | Re: Saturday Grumman Fly-In to Payson, Arizona |
Sounds like a fun trip. I'm modifying my cowling so I won't be able to ma
ke.
-----Original Message-----
From: greg sincock <ayaregion10@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 27, 2010 2:44 pm
Subject: Re: Saturday Grumman Fly-In to Payson, Arizona
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:41 PM, greg sincock <gmsincock@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just received from our new Four Corners Director - lets show him some supp
ort and head to Payson. I have camped at Payson and it is a first class ca
mp ground just for aviators.
Hey Grumman Drivers in * ARIZONA * NEW MEXICO * UTAH * COLORADO * He
ck....even you Californians and others are welcome!
Only a few more days until the weekend is here!
* Your Yankees, Travellers, Cheetahs & Tigers are all gassed up and rarin
' to go.......
* The weekend flying weather over Arizona & New Mexico looks perfect for
flying........
* Your stomach is starting to growl........
* SO......it is time to pull your Grumman out of the hangar and set a cou
rse for Payson, Arizona for our first AYA Four Corners Region Fly-In to Pa
yson, Arizona
This Saturday, October 2'nd the AYA-Four Corners Region will be hosting a
fly-in lunch at Payson, Arizona (KPAN).
WHO: Everyone who feels like flying their Grumman for a "Hundred Doll
ar Hamburger" in a really cool place.
WHAT: Fly-In Lunch and Optional Overnight Camping
WHEN: Saturday, October 2'nd.......Arrive by 11:00 a.m. / Lunch at 11:3
0 a.m.
WHERE: Payson Municipal Airport (KPAN) in North/Central Arizona
www.paysonairport.com
LUNCH: Crosswinds Restaurant "Home of the Million Dollar Views"
PARK: We will all be parking at the Payson air campground ramp (southw
est of the restaurant....next to hangars) and then walk to the restaurant.
Don't worry....we will have folks marshalling you in! The airport is hos
ting the EAA Young Eagles on Saturday, so we want to stay out of the way!
WHY: FOR THE FUN OF IT!
AND: If you feel like staying over on Saturday night, a group of us Grum
man drivers who just don't want to go back home right away are going to be
air-camping on the Payson Airport air campground on Friday and Saturday
nights. It is a beautiful campground with dedicated spots, fire rings,
grills, hot showers, etc.. It is absolutely FREE & promises to be a lot
of fun. Ken (Four Corners R.D.) is going to be grilling steaks for every
one on Saturday night. Throw your tent and a sleeping bag in the back of
the plane and join us for the evening as well!
RSVP: Please RSVP (so we can know how many tables to reserve!) via e-ma
il to fourcornersaya@q.com or via voice/text message to (928) 273-0042.
IF YOU ARE CAMPING OVERNIGHT....Please send Ken an e-mail to fourcornersay
a@q.com and let him know how many folks will be staying overnight so that
we can be sure to bring enough steaks for all the hungry pilots and guest
s on Saturday night.
INFO: Contact Ken for further info!
Ken Nebrig
Grumman Cheetah - N26917
Region 9 Director - AYA
2835 Willow Oak Road
Prescott, AZ 86305
(928) 273-0042
fourcornersaya@q.com
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: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Hi Larry,
That's why I came up with those options. The IO360 B1E is roughly an $8000
add-on to the cost of an overhaul. It is the simplest and most straight
forward.
Herein lies the rub. I talked to a prop expert and it looks like the B1E was
never certified with a fixed pitch prop. SO? you say. Well, if I have to pay
Sensenich to certify the prop to the engine/airframe, there goes the attraction.
The guy I talked to said that prop certification could run $50,000. It took
Fletcher 4 years to get the Sensenich approved for the Cheetah.
Crazy.
________________________________
From: Lawrence Massaro <lmassaro@tac-eng.com>
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:37:25 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
> From: Gary Vogt<teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM>
> 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?
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two
completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for
are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes
manufactured in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing,
and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if
ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLCAGs, it should have been fuel injection.
Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your
already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be
more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get
my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent
flown complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) ,
and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that
a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for
something they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance
gain?
>From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the
higher compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher
power, better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add
in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
>From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would
be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more
correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability
to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your
ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to
get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above".
I'm an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a
passion for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife
definitely has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my
desires for Option 3
would not be the in the majority.
Larry M
'92 AG-5B KRNM
'91 AG-5B KAUN (Project X)
--
Lawrence Massaro
Tactical Engineering& Analysis, Inc.
6050 Santo Road
Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92124
858 573 9869 x106 (o)
858 573 9874 (f)
858 354 9964 (c)
Primary email: lmassaro@tac-eng.com
Secondary emailpay: lawrence.massaro@us.army.mil
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 |
|
| Subject: | IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Hey Cliff.
I've talked to Ken a bit about his 10:1 work for the IO-550 when he was
working-up a set of cylinders for my Bonanza. He was surprised by how well
the TATurbo I have installed performed. I have noticed the EGT increase
with RPM (more ROP than LOP obviously) but I just figure you have 5% more
pulses of hot exhaust heading out the pipe with 100 more RPM thus the
additional heating.
A friend is talking about building an RV-8. Drool.
Jamey
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
I have to agree with your comments, Jamey. Do the basic installation first,
which would simplify the approval process especially if the very engine
model, IO-360-B1E, has already been approved with the Hartzell Scimitar
prop. Most people would be satisfied with the increased performance of this
combo, i.e, much improved takeoff and ROC, better fuel economy at cruise,
lower noise level there and I think, increased engine durability.* A 10:1
CR STC'd mod to this original combo could be added later on possibly if
there were enough demand from the purists that want the ultimate
performance. Personally, I think an ignition system modification with at
least a partial electronic ignition or maybe even completely electronic with
a backup battery would be more beneficial in improving fuel efficiency.
There still needs to be some more development work here. We both know that
increasing the CR AND adding an electronic fuel injection would be even more
beneficial in improving performance and reducing fuel consumption,
particularly at high cruise altitudes. Putting the engine on the dyno at
Ada, Oklahoma with the 10:1 CR and electronic FI would be very informative
and beneficial in optimizing such a system.
BTW, Ken (Lycon) has been trying to get a 10:1 CR piston STC'd for the
IO-550 Continental engine for years now and still hasn't got there.
* As a side note, Bill Marvel who owned a Tiger for 25 years had a lot of
experience with rapid exhaust valve guide wear, to the point of loosing
compression and replacing cylinders as low as 250 hrs on a regular basis.
He felt that his particular mission of long distance flights at altitude and
operation at redline most of the time aggravated this. Climbing out from a
5000 ft msl altitude airport after a fuel stop where the engine compartment
heat soaks and then having to operate with a leaned out mixture places a
heavy heat load on the cylinders during the subsequent climb. At any rate,
he now flys an RV-8A with the same engine with a CS prop and tighter more
restrictive baffling and has had NO guide or valve problems in 10 years and
over a 1000 hrs. The main difference is cruise is still at full throttle
but at 2300 rpm instead of 2700 rpm. And If you fly a CS prop you probably
have noticed that just increasing the rpm by only100 rpm with no throttle or
mixture changes will increase the EGT a significant amount. There must be
some correlation here. Another point of interest, installing a single
electronic ignition (one magneto retained) reduced fuel consumption about 1
gph at high altitude cruise conditions.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: James Courtney <mailto:jamey@jamescourtney.net>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:45 PM
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 <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
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
23:34:00
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
10:56:00
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: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Ken gave up on the 10:1 IO550, not because of the FAA, but, because he need
ed to =0Acome up with the time and money ($15,000) to finish the testing.
=0A=0AIf I got an IO360 with 10:1 installed and was able to fly it, I could
fly off =0Athe hours. =0A=0ABill Scott sells his HC STC for the O320 for
$500. After that, it's up to the =0Ainstaller. =0A=0AThe flight tests on
the cowling cost me $15,000. Just the flight tests. Add =0Athe DER at $11
0/hr to that. =0A=0AIf I sold the first 15 STCs for $1000, how many would
be willing to buy it =0Abefore it's finished just so I could pay for the te
sting?=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: flyv35b <flyv35b
@minetfiber.com>=0ATo: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, Septembe
r 28, 2010 6:32:41 AM=0ASubject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
=0A=0A =0AI have to agree with your comments, Jamey. Do the basic install
ation first, =0Awhich would simplify the approval process especially if th
e very engine model, =0AIO-360-B1E, has already been approved with the Har
tzell Scimitar prop. Most =0Apeople would be satisfied with the increased
performance of this combo, i.e, =0Amuch improved takeoff and ROC, better
fuel economy at cruise, lower noise level =0Athere and I think, increased e
ngine durability.* A 10:1 CR STC'd mod to this =0Aoriginal combo could be
added later on possibly if there were enough demand =0Afrom the purists t
hat want the ultimate performance. Personally, I think an =0Aignition sys
tem modification with at least a partial electronic ignition or =0Amaybe e
ven completely electronic with a backup battery would be more beneficial
=0Ain improving fuel efficiency. There still needs to be some more develo
pment =0Awork here. We both know that increasing the CR AND adding an ele
ctronic fuel =0Ainjection would be even more beneficial in improving perfo
rmance and reducing =0Afuel consumption, particularly at high cruise altit
udes. Putting the engine on =0Athe dyno at Ada, Oklahoma with the 10:1 CR
and electronic FI would be very =0Ainformative and beneficial in optimizi
ng such a system.=0A =0ABTW, Ken (Lycon) has been trying to get a 10:1 CR
piston STC'd for the IO-550 =0AContinental engine for years now and still
hasn't got there.=0A =0A* As a side note, Bill Marvel who owned a Tiger
for 25 years had a lot of =0Aexperience with rapid exhaust valve guide wea
r, to the point of loosing =0Acompression and replacing cylinders as low as
250 hrs on a regular basis. He =0Afelt that his particular mission of lo
ng distance flights at altitude and =0Aoperation at redline most of the ti
me aggravated this. Climbing out from a =0A5000 ft msl altitude airport a
fter a fuel stop where the engine compartment =0Aheat soaks and then havin
g to operate with a leaned out mixture places a heavy =0Aheat load on the
cylinders during the subsequent climb. At any rate, he now =0Aflys an RV-
8A with the same engine with a CS prop and tighter more restrictive =0Abaf
fling and has had NO guide or valve problems in 10 years and over a 1000
=0Ahrs. The main difference is cruise is still at full throttle but at 23
00 rpm =0Ainstead of 2700 rpm. And If you fly a CS prop you probably have
noticed that =0Ajust increasing the rpm by only100 rpm with no throttle o
r mixture changes will =0Aincrease the EGT a significant amount. There mu
st be some correlation here. =0AAnother point of interest, installing a s
ingle electronic ignition (one magneto =0Aretained) reduced fuel consumpti
on about 1 gph at high altitude cruise =0Aconditions.=0A =0ACliff=0A-----
Original Message ----- =0A>From: James Courtney =0A>To: teamgrumman-list
@matronics.com =0A>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:45 PM=0A>Subject:
RE: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A>=0A>=0A>I agree that the
odds are that a drop-in replacement for 100LL will be found =0A>(though
I=99m concerned and appalled at Continental=99s lack of intere
st in =0A>pushing hard for that solution) but I also think that I
=99d be reluctant to =0A>spend the kind of time and money required to ge
t an IO-360-B1E + CS prop + =0A>10:1 certified with the FAA until I had
a clearer answer on the fuel =0A>situation. I also think there=99
s a very good argument for certifying the =0A>unmodified IO engine and C
S prop combo first and then following on with the =0A>high CR modificati
on thus separating the concerns of slightly increased weight =0A>and the
new fuel metering system from what amounts to a performance tweak. =0A
>If some regulator at some point decides they don=99t like the 10:1
CR after all =0A>then you=99ll still have the 8.5:1 IO-360 + CS mod
to fall back on. You also =0A>might be able to get Lycon to do the lio
n=99s share of the STC lifting on the =0A>10:1 as a separate modif
ication.=0A> =0A>Godspeed to GAMI and Swift.=0A> =0A>Jamey=0A> =0A> =0A>
From:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com =0A>[mailto:owner-teamg
rumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of flyv35b=0A>Sent: Monday, Sep
tember 27, 2010 6:14 PM=0A>To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com=0A>Subject: R
e: TeamGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A> =0A>The Hartzell Scimitar
blade design is a definite improvement over their old =0A>blades. I have
a 3 bladed one on my Bonanza and have flown a 2 blade on an =0A>RV-9A a
day after changing from the older blade design and noticed a really =0A
>significant improvement in initial takeoff and climb thrust. It is hea
vier =0A>than the MT prop but significantly cheaper and I think a better
prop.=0A> =0A>I don't know if the FAA will issue a multiple STC for
an engine with 10:1 CR =0A>without a lot of "detonation margin" testing.
You obviously have a fair =0A>amount of experience with 10:1 CR with a
pparently no problems with 100LL fuel =0A>at least and that will not onl
y increase HP and BSFC and be especially =0A>beneficial at high altitude
where the engine would not be derated by limiting =0A>MP. A 9.0:1 CR
might be much easier to get approved. The only real =0A>practical solut
ion to the replacement of 100LL will be with a fuel that all =0A>the eng
ines certified on 100LL fuel will be able to operate on without any =0A>
changes, such as G100UL.=0A> =0A>Cliff=0A> =0A> =0A>----- Original Mes
sage ----- =0A>>From:Gary Vogt =0A>>To:teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
=0A>>Sent:Monday, September 27, 2010 12:28 PM=0A>>Subject:Re: Tea
mGrumman-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A>> =0A>>It isn't likely you'll see 100
LL go away without a replacement. There are =0A>>thousands upon thous
ands of hi-performance and turbo charged engines out =0A>>there that n
eed 100LL. =0A>> =0A>>I've heard all of these arguments before. In 1975
when leaded gas became =0A>>extinct, the public cried. "Oh, No. No
more high compression engines. =0A>> Catalytic converters. What will
we ever do? Oh, my. There goes the =0A>>muscle car era. No more
fast cars. Gas mileage will go down because the =0A>>timing needs to be
retarded in order to run all this SMOG stuff. The =0A>>God-Damn governm
ent is going to ruin everything. I'll have to go boot-leg =0A>>fuel f
rom the airports. The sky is falling. The sky is falling." =0A
>> =0A>>Blah, blah, blah. Your Corvette with 11:1 runs just fine on u
nleaded gas. =0A>> So does your Lexus. It's about time aircraft techn
ology caught up to =0A>>1975.=0A>> =0A>>I've talked with Ken about direct i
njected engines. It's doable. And it =0A>>doesn't cost an arm and a
leg either. Steal the technology from the Chevy =0A>>Cruz.=0A>> =0A>>
MY props are just not that good. Ned doesn't say much on hear, but, I
=0A>>don't think he's that happy with the MT prop from a performance
standpoint. =0A>> There is a Hartzell Scimitar prop that has been appr
oved for the -B1E. =0A>> It's heavier than 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@matron
ics.com =0A>>[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On B
ehalf Of Scott=0A>>Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:38 AM=0A>>To: teamgru
mman-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 P
M, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@YAHOO.COM> wrote:=0A>>Option 1: IO 306 B1E with
a fixed pitch prop. Simple. Easy. The STC =0A>>would be very str
aight forward=0A>>> =0A>>>Option 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant spe
ed prop. More work for the =0A>>>STC. It's heavier. But, you'd
get a number of benefits.=0A>>> =0A>>>Option 3: IO 360 B1E with 10:1
compression ratio, constant speed prop, =0A>>>limited by manifold pr
essure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp =0A>>>to about 5,0
00 feet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a =0A>>>lo
t more potential.=0A>>> =0A>>> =0A>>> =0A>>>OK, so, which option do you pre
fer? Would you be willing to put a =0A>>>deposit down?=0A>>> =0A>>>
=0A>>> =0A>>>===================
=================0A>>>t">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List=0A>>>============
========================0A>>>
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>>>=======
====0A>>>http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22%3ehttp:/www.matroni
cs.com/contribution=0A>=0A>>>===============
=====================0A>>> =0A>
=0A> =0A>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List=0A>http://for
ums.matronics.com=0A>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A> =0A>No viru
s found in this incoming message.=0A>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com=0A>1
1:40:00=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>>href="http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?T
eamGrumman-List=0A>>=0A>>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums
.matronics.com=0A>>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://ww
w.matronics.com/c=0A =0A =0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumma
n-List=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contributio
n=0A =0ANo virus found in this incoming message.=0AChecked by AVG - www
.avg.com=0A23:34:00=0A> =0A>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Tea
mGrumman-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-Listhref="h
ttp://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0A> href="http://
============== =0A=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
| Subject: | convention prefly |
Below is an edited article I wrote for a grumman related publication. I
wanted to share the content with those not receiving such. Hope to see ya'l
l
next year !!
W
*What is the location for next year's pre-convention fly in? OK...We'll
start with the accolades. From Conde Nast, Travel and Leisure, Southern
Living, MSNBC.com, Forbes and many others:
One of America's Prettiest Town's,
Top Ten Cities in the USA"
"Top 10 Cities in the US and Canada"
"20 Sweet Spots for Summer Travel"
"America's Most Mannerly City"
=9350 Best Romantic Getaways=94
"15 Coolest Cities in North America"
"Best Romantic Getaway"
"Best Southern City"
Need some more hints? Maybe some aviator's hints:
For those of you heading to KSSI for next years grumman gathering, when you
depart this city on Monday, you'll have a short jaunt of 60 miles on a
initial magnetic course of 196 degrees down the beautiful Georgia coastline
towards St. Simons.
Welcome to Savannah, Ga. Join us May 21-23, 2011 in Georgia's first city.
Founded in 1733 by British General James Oglethorpe, Savannah was the first
planned city in North America. While Savannah has our nation's largest
historic districts,it isn't a staid and dull museum of old homes. It is a
vibrant working city, bustling seaport, full of cultural arts, great
food/drink and the birth place for many of our Grummans. *
*Pre convention is a casual few days for you to relax or indulge at will
with or without your Grumman friends and is usually held in a larger city
that the convention would not normally visit due the restrictions of
controlled airspace. These pre conventions are usually planned and hosted b
y
a local grumman enthusiast, providing the opportunity for attendees to "dro
p
in" on the way to the actual annual meeting. Tours are planned and
participated in on a casual cafeteria type of schedule. By preplanning, we
are afforded the numbers in negotiating group rates for our over night and
tour needs. We try to schedule at least one if not two evening meals as a
group, and as always, this in an optional feature. We are vetting bids for
hotel properties and have negotiated over nights and fuel discounts with an
FBO.. We look forward to your visit. Please stay tuned for developing
details.
*
--
Wes Chapman
Wes Chapman PC
PO Box 718
Vidalia, GA 30475
912-293-3794(cell)
1709 Green Acres Drive
Vidalia, GA 30474
912-538-8289(home)
weschapmanpc@gmail.com
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: convention prefly |
Hi Wes!!!
I like the sound of this. Keep us informed often if you can. There'll
probably be two of us!
Linn
On 9/28/2010 5:18 PM, Wes Chapman wrote:
> Below is an edited article I wrote for a grumman related
> publication. I wanted to share the content with those not receiving
> such. Hope to see ya'll next year !!
> W
>
> /What is the location for next year's pre-convention fly in?
> OK...We'll start with the accolades. From Conde Nast, Travel and
> Leisure, Southern Living, MSNBC.com, Forbes and many others:
>
> One of America's Prettiest Town's,
> Top Ten Cities in the USA"
> "Top 10 Cities in the US and Canada"
> "20 Sweet Spots for Summer Travel"
> "America's Most Mannerly City"
> =9350 Best Romantic Getaways=94
> "15 Coolest Cities in North America"
> "Best Romantic Getaway"
> "Best Southern City"
>
> Need some more hints? Maybe some aviator's hints:
> For those of you heading to KSSI for next years grumman gathering,
> when you depart this city on Monday, you'll have a short jaunt of 60
> miles on a initial magnetic course of 196 degrees down the beautiful
> Georgia coastline towards St. Simons.
>
> Welcome to Savannah, Ga. Join us May 21-23, 2011 in Georgia's first
> city. Founded in 1733 by British General James Oglethorpe, Savannah
> was the first planned city in North America. While Savannah has our
> nation's largest historic districts,it isn't a staid and dull museum
> of old homes. It is a vibrant working city, bustling seaport, full of
> cultural arts, great food/drink and the birth place for many of our
> Grummans. /
>
> /Pre convention is a casual few days for you to relax or indulge at
> will with or without your Grumman friends and is usually held in a
> larger city that the convention would not normally visit due the
> restrictions of controlled airspace. These pre conventions are usually
> planned and hosted by a local grumman enthusiast, providing the
> opportunity for attendees to "drop in" on the way to the actual
> annual meeting. Tours are planned and participated in on a casual
> cafeteria type of schedule. By preplanning, we are afforded the
> numbers in negotiating group rates for our over night and tour needs.
> We try to schedule at least one if not two evening meals as a group,
> and as always, this in an optional feature. We are vetting bids for
> hotel properties and have negotiated over nights and fuel discounts
> with an FBO.. We look forward to your visit. Please stay tuned for
> developing details.
> /
> --
> Wes Chapman
> Wes Chapman PC
> PO Box 718
> Vidalia, GA 30475
> 912-293-3794(cell)
> 1709 Green Acres Drive
> Vidalia, GA 30474
> 912-538-8289(home)
> weschapmanpc@gmail.com <mailto:weschapmanpc@gmail.com>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
> *
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
Well, I guess Option 1 is a non-starter then...
So you are down to option 2 - FI engine plus CS prop
or
Option 3 - FI engine plus CS prop plus HC pistons.
Since you have to deal with the same order of magnitude in certification bullsh*t
with either, looks to me that Option 3 is the only choice.
Now the question is what prop? Is there room for the prop controls/governor, etc
with the Hartzell option? The MT looks nice, but damn, pretty pricey...
Forgive my ignorance but what FI IO-360 engine is used in the C-172SPs? and why
isnt that engine/fixed prop a candidate?
Larry M
'92 AG-5B N9186M KRNM
'91 AG-5B N626FT KAUN (Project X)
[quote="teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM"]Hi Larry,
That's why I came up with those options. The IO360 B1E is roughly an $8000 add-on
to the cost of an overhaul. It is the simplest and most straight forward.
Herein lies the rub. I talked to a prop expert and it looks like the B1E was never
certified with a fixed pitch prop. SO? you say. Well, if I have to pay
Sensenich to certify the prop to the engine/airframe, there goes the attraction.
The guy I talked to said that prop certification could run $50,000. It took
Fletcher 4 years to get the Sensenich approved for the Cheetah.
Crazy.
From: Lawrence Massaro
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:37:25 AM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
> From: Gary Vogt
> Subject: 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?
>
>
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for
are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes manufactured
in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing,
and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if
ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLC AGs, it should have been fuel injection.
Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your
already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be
more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get
my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent flown
complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) ,
and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that
a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for something
they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance gain?
From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the higher
compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher power,
better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add
in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would
be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability
to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your
ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to
get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above". I'm
an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a passion
for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife definitely
has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my desires
for Option 3
would not be the in the majority.
Larry M
'92 AG-5B KRNM
'91 AG-5B KAUN (Project X)
--
Lawrence Massaro
Tactical Engineering& Analysis, Inc.
6050 Santo Road
Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92124
858 573 9869 x106
> [b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=314049#314049
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: convention prefly |
Now, that would be fun. Take my plane back to it's birth place.=0A=0A=0A
=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Wes Chapman <weschapmanpc@gmail
.com>=0ATo: Wes Chapman <weschapmanpc@gmail.com>=0ASent: Tue, September 28,
2010 2:18:31 PM=0ASubject: TeamGrumman-List: convention prefly=0A=0A=0ABel
ow is an edited article I wrote for a grumman related publication. I wanted
=0Ato share the content with those not receiving such. Hope to see ya'll n
ext year =0A!! =0A =0AW=0A =0AWhat is the location for next year's pre-conv
ention fly in? OK...We'll start =0Awith the accolades. From Conde Nast, Tra
vel and Leisure, Southern Living, =0AMSNBC.com, Forbes and many others:=0A
=0AOne of America's Prettiest Town's,=0ATop Ten Cities in the USA"=0A"Top 1
0 Cities in the US and Canada"=0A"20 Sweet Spots for Summer Travel" =0A"Ame
rica's Most Mannerly City"=0A=9C50 Best Romantic Getaways=9D=0A
"15 Coolest Cities in North America"=0A"Best Romantic Getaway"=0A"Best Sout
hern City" =0A =0ANeed some more hints? Maybe some aviator's hints:=0AFor t
hose of you heading to KSSI for next years grumman gathering, when you =0Ad
epart this city on Monday, you'll have a short jaunt of 60 miles on a initi
al =0Amagnetic course of 196 degrees down the beautiful Georgia coastline t
owards St. =0ASimons.=0A =0AWelcome to Savannah, Ga. Join us May 21-23, 201
1 in Georgia's first city. =0AFounded in 1733 by British General James Ogle
thorpe, Savannah was the first =0Aplanned city in North America. While Sava
nnah has our nation's largest historic =0Adistricts,it isn't a staid and du
ll museum of old homes. It is a vibrant working =0Acity, bustling seaport,
full of cultural arts, great food/drink and the birth =0Aplace for many of
our Grummans. =0A=0A=0APre convention is a casual few days for you to relax
or indulge at will with or =0Awithout your Grumman friends and is usually
held in a larger city that the =0Aconvention would not normally visit due t
he restrictions of controlled airspace. =0AThese pre conventions are usuall
y planned and hosted by a local grumman =0Aenthusiast, providing the opport
unity for attendees to "drop in" on the way to =0Athe actual annual meetin
g. Tours are planned and participated in on a casual =0Acafeteria type of
schedule. By preplanning, we are afforded the numbers in =0Anegotiating gro
up rates for our over night and tour needs. We try to schedule at =0Aleast
one if not two evening meals as a group, and as always, this in an =0Aoptio
nal feature. We are vetting bids for hotel properties and have negotiated
=0Aover nights and fuel discounts with an FBO.. We look forward to your vis
it. =0APlease stay tuned for developing details. =0A=0A=0A-- =0AWes Chapm
an=0AWes Chapman PC=0APO Box 718=0AVidalia, GA 30475=0A912-293-3794(cell)
=0A1709 Green Acres Drive=0AVidalia, GA 30474=0A912-538-8289(home)=0Awescha
======================= =0A
=0A=0A=0A
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: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
The -L2A is an updraft engine. That means the Tiger airbox would have to be
exchanged for something else. The Cessna had a deeper cowling so . . . . more
room. It does have a hollow crank though, so maybe the testing on a fixed pitch
has already been done. The question remains whether Sensenich will bless the
installation into a Tiger. Something to look into.
________________________________
From: lmassaro <lmassaro@tac-eng.com>
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 7:00:16 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
Well, I guess Option 1 is a non-starter then...
So you are down to option 2 - FI engine plus CS prop
or
Option 3 - FI engine plus CS prop plus HC pistons.
Since you have to deal with the same order of magnitude in certification
bullsh*t with either, looks to me that Option 3 is the only choice.
Now the question is what prop? Is there room for the prop controls/governor,
etc with the Hartzell option? The MT looks nice, but damn, pretty pricey...
Forgive my ignorance but what FI IO-360 engine is used in the C-172SPs? and why
isnt that engine/fixed prop a candidate?
Larry M
'92 AG-5B N9186M KRNM
'91 AG-5B N626FT KAUN (Project X)
[quote="teamgrumman(at)YAHOO.COM"]Hi Larry,
That's why I came up with those options. The IO360 B1E is roughly an $8000
add-on to the cost of an overhaul. It is the simplest and most straight
forward.
Herein lies the rub. I talked to a prop expert and it looks like the B1E was
never certified with a fixed pitch prop. SO? you say. Well, if I have to pay
Sensenich to certify the prop to the engine/airframe, there goes the
attraction. The guy I talked to said that prop certification could run
$50,000. It took Fletcher 4 years to get the Sensenich approved for the
Cheetah.
Crazy.
From: Lawrence Massaro
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 6:37:25 AM
Subject: Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)
> From: Gary Vogt
> Subject: 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?
>
>
Well Gary, I think you have two distinct questions here that will yield two
completely
different answers. What people would like, and what they are willing to pay for
are
usually two completely different things.
My take...
Option (1)
Obviously the choice for most. Simple. It still amazes me that planes
manufactured in
2005 were still being built with carbs. I know about the FAA, and the testing,
and the
economics of the reasons why it probably wasnt done by Tiger LLC, but hell, if
ANYTHING
could have been done to the Tiger LLC AGs, it should have been fuel injection.
Instead,
IMHO, they wasted their time certifying a glass panel.
The nice thing about this is that if your at TBO, why not do this upgrade? Your
already
spending $$$$ on getting a new engine, why not plop in a B1E? Sure, it would be
more costly
than a "standard" high end overhaul, but I'd currently give my left n*t to get
my Tiger
fuel injected.
Option (2)
Probably not the choice for most. Why? My guess is that most pilots havent
flown complex
aircraft (not that this change alone would make the Tiger "complex" WRT FAA) ,
and/or dont
realize or require the need for extra climb/cruise performance efficiencies that
a CS prop
provides. A tougher sell as how much $$$$ would most be willing to pay for
something they
may not feel they "need"
Option (3)
Same logic as (2). Will people be willing to pay for the added performance
gain?
>From a marketing/sales perspective, a combination of the 180hp B1E plus the
higher compression
would most likely give the best return from a customer perspective. Higher
power, better
high alt performance, efficiency, plus the added benefit of fuel injection. Add
in the
new AG cowl, and whats not to love?
>From the engineering perspective, all the proposed changes make sense and would
be
beneficial. However, you may not get many customers wanting all, or more
correctly,
not wanting to pay (based on their assessment of "value") or having the ability
to pay
for them all. Combining all the changes into one "super" STC will limit your
ability
to market those upgrades IMHO. Option one would need to be a stand alone STC to
get any
significant buy in from the candidate owners out there.
I consider myself blessed in that I have the means to do "all of the above".
I'm an
engineer/geek who appreciates the technology, the 'cool' factor, and have a
passion for stuff like
this. So I obviously want it all and would be willing to pay for it (my wife
definitely has an equally strong
opinion on this, albeit 180 deg out of phase with mine). But I beleive my
desires for Option 3
would not be the in the majority.
Larry M
'92 AG-5B KRNM
'91 AG-5B KAUN (Project X)
--
Lawrence Massaro
Tactical Engineering& Analysis, Inc.
6050 Santo Road
Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92124
858 573 9869 x106
> [b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=314049#314049
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-360 B1E (180 hp) |
I just saw this. =0A=0A"Why isn=99t a 200hp version of the IO360 an
option? I thought I heard that =0Asomeone transplanted an IO360/CS prop ou
t of a Cardinal with good results. No?=0ADon"=0A=0AThe 200hp, though it so
unds sexy as hell, is a terrible choice for the Tiger. =0A1. It's 60 lbs
heavier.=0A2. Requires a modified engine mount=0A3. Requires all new baffle
s=0A4. Requires a new airbox and inlet.=0A5. Is an inch wider=0A6. Has a na
rrower detonation margin =0A7. Wouldn't be able to fit my cowling on it.=0A
=0AA ported and polished parallel valve engine with 8.5:1 compression ratio
will =0Amake 200 hp everyday. =0A=0AA stock parallel valve engine with 10
:1 compression ratio will make 210 hp. =0A Derate that to 180 hp and you ha
ve 180 hp to 5,000 + feet.=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFr
om: Don Curry <don.curry@inbox.com>=0ATo: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com=0A
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 9:06:11 AM=0ASubject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: I
O-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A=0A =0AWhy isn=99t a 200hp version of the IO360
an option? I thought I heard that =0Asomeone transplanted an IO360/CS prop
out of a Cardinal with good results. No?=0ADon=0A =0A-----Original Messag
e-----=0AFrom: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com =0A[mailto:owner
-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Vogt=0ASent: Sund
ay, September 26, 2010 7:31 PM=0ATo: Teamgrumman List=0ASubject: TeamGrumma
n-List: IO-360 B1E (180 hp)=0A =0AOption 1: IO 306 B1E with a fixed pitch
prop. Simple. Easy. The STC would =0Abe very straight forward=0A =0AOpt
ion 2: IO 360 B1E with a constant speed prop. More work for the STC. It
's =0Aheavier. But, you'd get a number of benefits.=0A =0AOption 3: IO 36
0 B1E with 10:1 compression ratio, constant speed prop, limited =0Aby manif
old pressure to 180 hp. Better fuel specifics. 180 hp to about 5,000 =0Af
eet. Getting this STC will be a long process but has a lot more potential.
=0A =0A =0A =0AOK, so, which option do you prefer? Would you be willing to
put a deposit down?=0A =0A =0A =0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A
=0A________________________________=0A =0A Send any screenshot to your fri
ends in seconds...=0AWorks in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums
and social networks.=0ATry IM ToolPack at www.imtoolpack.com for FREE=0A
================ =0A=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
| Subject: | Project X plane pics |
Before and After
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 |
|
Before and After
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 |
|
| Subject: | New customers plane. Complained his brakes didn't work. |
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 |
|
Note the duct tape on the wall. You have to pay avionics shops extra to get
this quality of work.
Here is a pic of the wires running under the closeout under the spar. Had more
thought gone into the original routing of the wires, this would never have been
an issue.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: New customers plane. Complained his brakes didn't |
work.
Bugged by bad brakes? Call Gary!
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Gary Vogt <teamgrumman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
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! --
|