Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:09 AM - Re: MAP and RPM (was: range) (Walt Lannon)
2. 12:14 AM - Re: range (Walt Lannon)
3. 12:44 AM - O2 (Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd)
4. 12:51 AM - ice (Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd)
5. 04:49 AM - Carb Heat (Richard Goode)
6. 04:49 AM - Range/Power (Richard Goode)
7. 05:40 AM - Re: Range/Power (Gus Fraser)
8. 06:34 AM - density altitude and O2 for humans (Brian Lloyd)
9. 07:01 AM - Re: density altitude and O2 for humans (Cy Galley)
10. 07:11 AM - Re: MAP and RPM (was: range) (Brian Lloyd)
11. 07:21 AM - Re: O2 (Brian Lloyd)
12. 07:27 AM - Re: Range/Power (Brian Lloyd)
13. 08:38 AM - WAS: Fod for Thought (Now an insurance clarification . . . . :0 (Tom Johnson)
14. 08:46 AM - US Headset wiring for YAK (Aubrey Price)
15. 09:31 AM - Re: US Headset wiring for YAK (Brian Lloyd)
16. 11:02 AM - Re: Range/Power (Bill Halverson)
17. 11:02 AM - Re: Range/Power (Bill Halverson)
18. 11:40 AM - Danger of one way valve sticking shut. (Aubrey Price)
19. 02:52 PM - Florida CJs (ByronMFox@aol.com)
20. 04:00 PM - Re: Florida CJs (Ernie)
21. 05:08 PM - Re: Florida CJs (N4829T@aol.com)
22. 07:40 PM - Re: Florida CJs (cjpilot710@aol.com)
23. 08:03 PM - Re: Yak-52/50 Canopy Glass (Frank Haertlein)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MAP and RPM (was: range) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Yak-List: MAP and RPM (was: range)
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> Walt Lannon wrote:
>
> > A supercharger is a device designed to increase engine manifold
> > pressure and therefore increase output horsepower. The term generally
> > refers to an internal engine driven centrifugal blower. A
> > turbocharger is an externally driven supercharger, driven by exhaust
> > gases. It could be driven by some other power source and have another
> > name but it would still be a supercharger.
>
> Yes, I know. I will take care to be even more specific, exact, and
detailed in my next post.
I will try to do that as well but I usually screw it up.
> BTW, you can also have a vane-type "Roots" supercharger as well. I don't
recall if I have seen any of those on aircraft engines but it is not beyond
the realm of reason.
I think the Roots blower was used on some early British engines.
> > All supercharged engines regardless of boost source are technically
> > "altitude" engines and have a critical altitude. In the case of the
> > Huosai, M14P, AI14R, etc. the critical altitude happens to be sea
> > level so it becomes a moot point unless you were operating from below
> > that level.
>
> It is still a moot point because the specification for maximum MAP is
ambient pressure plus 85mm-Hg so you can still use full boost below sea
level.
Yep! I don't know where you would have to go to get that low an altitude.
> > normally aspirated engine has no critical altitude; ie: full throttle
> > can be applied at any altitude assuming RPM and fuel mixture are
> > correct.
> >
> > The critical altitude may be defined as the altitude at which full
> > throttle operation will not exceed the engines design rated (ie:
> > maximum continuous) power.
>
> I think I would define it slightly differently. Critical altitude is the
altitude that maximum available boost does not exceed maximum specified MAP
for conditions. Critical altitude may be different for TO, METO, and max
continuous power. For some engines it will also change with fuel octane
ratings and RPM.
I think I have pretty closely paraphrased the P&W definition. METO and max.
continuous are usually the same. Take-off power is a specific increase above
METO and is time limited (for the 1340 it's 600 HP @ 2250 and 36" for a max.
of 5 mins.). These specs. (TO, METO, MAX. CONT.) are specified by the
manufacturer for a specific fuel grade. They have, I believe, been
down-graded in some of the larger engines for lower octane fuels. The R985
and R1340 were recertified at the same levels for 80/87 when 91/98 was
discontinued.
> > All other supercharged engines that I am aware of have a critical
> > altitude at some point above sea level. This is true also of a waste
> > gated system, the pilot may be able to apply full throttle for
> > take-off and climb with the waste gate automatically controlling the
> > MAP. Upon reaching the critical altitude the waste gate will be
> > closed.
>
> Correct.
>
> > For example the P&W R1340 rated at 550 HP max. cont. at 32.5 in. and
> > 2200 RPM can maintain that power to 5500 ft. in standard air with the
> > 10:1 blower. The critical altitude of the 12:1 blower model is
> > approx. 7000 ft. Above these points the MAP will decrease like a
> > normally aspirated engine.
>
> Well actually, if you leave the throttle alone, the MAP will decrease with
altitude anyway. But you are allowed to continue opening the throttle in
order to maintain that 32.5 in-Hg MAP since the "blower" has excess boost.
Agreed and I rarely ever use rated (max.climb) power for more than a few
minutes - burns too much gas!
> > This is a simple single stage, single speed blower. There are much
> > more complex designs, some with turbochargers as well that can
> > increase the crit.alt. dramatically.
>
> Yes.
>
> > The suggestion that "one should run with the throttle wide and vary
> > power with the prop control" is not good advice.
>
> Yes, it is, depending on the engine. For the M14 and Huosai, it should
work just fine without causing any damage to the engine. For instance, with
the Huosai engine I have found no documented minimum RPM figures for a given
MAP. The only limit I can see is that you may operate at full throttle and
2250 RPM for up to 1 hour with a 5 minute break after that. If you reduce
the MAP to 28 in-Hg you may run up to 2250 RPM for a long as you want.
Since BMEP decreases with decreasing MAP, and since MAP decreases as RPM
decreases, I can see nothing that contraindicates full throttle operation
with reduced RPM.
> In larger radial engines there are maximum MAP values for differing RPM.
The pilot must ensure that the MAP does not exceed specifications for a
given RPM and fuel type, but even with that there is latitude to make RPM
reductions without making MAP reductions. (Maximum MAP for big radials is
also different depending on whether you are running 100/130 octane or
115/140 octane. They may also have torque limitations as well.)
>
> I was making the point that people who worry about pulling the prop back
without reducing the throttle first are probably avoiding a perfectly valid
and safe mode of operation.
Interesting concept, reducing RPM with a fixed throttle opening and a MAP
above ambient should, as you suggest, reduce the MAP. But, having,
figuratively, grown up with radial engines the rule is etched on my brain -
Pitch down (inc. RPM) then Power up and Power down then Pitch up (dec. RPM).
Strangely enough P&W seem to agree with this rule. This is probably due (in
the open throttle, RPM down case) to an increasing propellor load that could
exceed the power reduction of reduced MAP.
The CJ manual does give some specific power specs. other than TO and rated.
65% @ 1950 & 660(26") and 50% @ 1790 & 600(23.6") for the Huosai 6A. I think
if one tries to maintain close to that spread there should be no problem.
They run out of puff so quickly with altitude that overboosting is unlikely
but overstressing of pistons and rods could be a concern with low MAP and
high RPM.
> > The fact that Bud Granley was able to reduce power in the Sea Fury in
> > this manner in no way recommends this procedure for the engines we
> > are operating.
>
> The point I was making is that a radical RPM reduction will also bring a
radical reduction in MAP. As long as one does not exceed the maximum MAP
for a given RPM setting, one can continue to reduce RPM without reducing
MAP.
Do you mean " without increasing MAP" ?
> > It is entirely possible that the R4360 in this case is
> > equipped with automatic devices sensing MAP and RPM and controlling a
> > waste gate.
>
> The standard R4360 does not have an exhaust-gas-driven turbosupercharger
(since we are getting picky about names). There may have been some
installations with one fitted but I am not aware of any modified Sea Furys
with such. Therefore, there is no waste gate, a waste gate being a device
that controls exhaust gas bypass around the turbine in an exhaust-gas-driven
turbosupercharger. I think you may be thinking of what is commonly called a
overpressure limit valve that opens to reduce excessive induction system
pressure.
>
> No, in this case reducing engine RPM with the prop control reduces the RPM
of the centrifugal compressor stage ("blower") since the compressor is
directly geared to the crankshaft. The gear ratio is 6:1 in the R4360 so
the "blower" rotates at six times the crank RPM. Reducing crank RPM reduces
"blower" RPM and reduces available boost substantially.
>
> > You may get away with that practice for a little while with the
> > Huosai, M14P etc. but you will eventually fail the engine. With a
> > truly supercharged engine you could destroy it in a matter of
> > minutes.
>
> Again, I believe you might not be correct in all cases. In all engines
you must adhere to the operating limitations but within that range you are
free to use various combinations of MAP and RPM. The point I made and still
make is that, with the Huosai and Vendeneyev engines, you have tremendous
latitude to make RPM reductions without making a corresponding MAP
reduction. Larger radial engines may not have the same latitude due to the
greater available boost, increased compression, or whatever. But even there
it was normal to operate at very low RPMs with relatively high MAP.
I am never correct in all cases! Using the term waste gate for the 4360 was
a brain fart. I was thinking of some type of MAP relief valve though I have
no idea if there is such a valve. Now that you have forced me to really
think (which gives me a headache) about all this I would suggest that the
negative result of the open throttle, reduce RPM approach is increased
propellor loading that could result in internal engine damage.
In Bud,s case with the Sea Fury this was an emergency situation and that
action had the desired result - a safe landing.
> > Just as a matter of interest (and maybe generate a little
> > controversy) the blower is the reason the T6/Harvard runs away from
> > the CJ6 (Huosai or M14) above 6000 ft or so.
>
> The supercharger in the R1340 is capable of overboosting the engine
(exceeding maximum allowable MAP) thus leading to a critical altitude above
which the engine cannot maintain rated power. The Huosai and Vendeneyev
engines are already running with maximum boost at sea level so they are
losing power already as they climb. Therefore I suspect you very well may
be right.
Yeah, but it hurts at the fuel pump!
Walt
> --
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
> brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
> +1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
> GMT-4
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
Hi Gus;
Don't know the answer to that. I did'nt know the Merlin ever used a
turbocharger. May be a Roots blower?
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: range
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
>
> Walt,
> I will post the pages from the 1943 book on the subject to make it clear
for
> everyone. What you say about the exhaust driven units is right. Was that
not
> why so many Merlin engines blew up on Spitfires in the early days ?
>
> Gus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Walt Lannon
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: range
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
>
> More on superchargers, I see a few misconceptions in the previous
> posts; ---------
>
> A supercharger is a device designed to increase engine manifold pressure
and
> therefore increase output horsepower.
> The term generally refers to an internal engine driven centrifugal blower.
A
> turbocharger is an externally driven supercharger, driven by exhaust
gases.
> It could be driven by some other power source and have another name but it
> would
> still be a supercharger.
>
> All supercharged engines regardless of boost source are technically
> "altitude" engines and have a critical altitude. In the case of the
Huosai,
> M14P, AI14R, etc. the critical altitude happens to be sea level so it
> becomes a moot point unless you were operating from below that level. A
> normally aspirated engine has no critical altitude; ie: full throttle can
be
> applied at any altitude assuming RPM and fuel mixture are correct.
>
> The critical altitude may be defined as the altitude at which full
throttle
> operation will not exceed the engines design rated (ie: maximum
continuous)
> power.
>
> All other supercharged engines that I am aware of have a critical altitude
> at some point above sea level. This is true also of a waste gated system,
> the pilot may be able to apply full throttle for take-off and climb with
the
> waste gate automatically controlling the MAP. Upon reaching the critical
> altitude the waste gate will be closed.
> For example the P&W R1340 rated at 550 HP max. cont. at 32.5 in. and 2200
> RPM can maintain that power to 5500 ft. in standard air with the 10:1
> blower. The critical altitude of the12:1 blower model is approx. 7000 ft.
> Above these points the MAP will decrease like a normally aspirated engine.
> This is a simple single stage, single speed blower. There are much more
> complex designs, some with turbochargers as well that can increase the
> crit.alt. dramatically.
>
> The suggestion that "one should run with the throttle wide and vary power
> with the prop control" is not good advice. The fact that Bud Granley was
> able to reduce power in the Sea Fury in this manner in no way recommends
> this procedure for the engines we are operating. It is entirely possible
> that the R4360 in this case is equipped with automatic devices sensing MAP
> and RPM and controlling a waste gate.
>
> You may get away with that practice for a little while with the Huosai,
M14P
> etc. but you will eventually fail the engine. With a truly supercharged
> engine you could destroy it in a matter of minutes.
>
> Just as a matter of interest (and maybe generate a little controversy) the
> blower is the reason the T6/Harvard runs away from the CJ6 (Huosai or M14)
> above 6000 ft or so.
>
> Cheers;
> Walt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: range
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
> >
> > Gus Fraser wrote:
> >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > I think that it is because of the increased air pressure. Due to this
> > > to maintain the mixture there is more fuel needed to maintain the
> > > fuel air ratio. But hey, at any given manifold pressure and a given
> > > RPM surely they produce the same power and therefore the same fuel
> > > usage ? The PF engine is only a 400 HP engine when it produces 400
> > > HP.
> >
> > But Mark is correct in that the supercharger is geared to a higher RPM
for
> a given crankshaft RPM therefore it requires more power to drive. When
the
> output shaft is delivering the same HP to the prop the 400 hp engine is
> still using more fuel because there is greater hp consumed in the
> supercharger.
> >
> > > Remember that any supercharged single stage, non boosted, non geared
> > > supercharger
> >
> > Huh? If it has a supercharger, it is boosted.
> >
> > > Superchargers have a critical altitude. This is where the power of
> > > the super charger has the most benefit.
> >
> > First, let's get our terms straight so we make sure we are speaking of
> apples and apples. When I see the term "supercharger" I think of a device
> that takes power from the crankshaft to power a compressor that will
> increase manifold pressure. When I see the term "turbocharger" I think of
a
> device that uses waste power in the exhaust to turn a turbine which in
turn
> drives a compressor to increase manifold pressure.
> >
> > Turbochargers that are powered by exhaust gas do indeed have a critical
> altitude above which the engine cannot sustain maximum usable manifold
> pressure. In an engine with an automatic or adjustable waste gate, it is
> the altitude at which the waste gate is all the way closed and the
> turbocharger is providing maximum boost. If you continue to climb above
> this altitude, MAP will decrease just as it does with a normally aspirated
> engine.
> >
> > A mechanical supercharger, one that is gear-driven from the crankshaft,
> always provides a fixed amount of boost, the amount of which is totally
> dependent on engine RPM. For instance, the supercharger in the stock CJ6A
> engine provides 85 mm-Hg of boost at 2350 RPM but only 80 mm-Hg of boost
at
> 2250 RPM. Since all of this boost is usable, there is no critical
altitude.
> >
> > In bigger engines with superchargers the boost available down low may be
> greater than needed to achieve maximum usable MAP. (This also varies with
> grade of fuel.) I presume this is what you mean by operating below
critical
> altitude, that being the altitude at which you can achieve maximum usable
> MAP at full throttle. I guess we can consider this a critical altitude
but
> I believe this is a misnomer as we are not dealing with a turbocharger.
> Regardless, your point is well taken. The engine is less efficient below
> the altitude where you can run full throttle.
> >
> > OTOH, most of us learned on flat engines, either normally aspirated or
> turbocharged, not round engines. (There are some airplanes that use
> supercharged engines, the Twin Bonanza and the Aero Commander 680 come to
> mind here, but I leave them out of this discussion.) Their use of MAP and
> RPM is very different. Those engines tend to keep MAP constant as the RPM
> is decreased. (MAP increases slightly as RPM is decreased in a normally
> aspirated engine and stays constant in a turbocharged engine below
critical
> altitude.)
> >
> > But a round engine with a supercharger gives you TWO controls to vary
MAP:
> throttle *and* RPM. Hal recently posted a message about landing a Sea
Fury
> with the throttle stuck full open. Did anyone notice that just by pulling
> the prop (RPM) way back the pilot reduced his MAP to 30"Hg? If one is
> interested in efficient operation, one should plan to run with the
throttle
> wide and vary power using the prop control. The instrumentation in the
Yak
> already implies this by calibrating the tachometer (RPM) in
percent-of-power
> instead of RPM. The implication is that it is OK to run at 50% or 60% of
> maximum RPM.
> >
> > > Below this altitude it uses more fuel for the reason stated above,
> > > above this altitude the supercharger is not as effective because it
> > > can't thicken the air enough.
> >
> > Well, it is still fully effective but it can only provide so much boost
> and if you start with lower ambient/inlet pressure, you get lower
> final/outlet pressure.
> >
> > > On looking in the Yak manual I found that there is specifically no
> > > critical altitude. Not sure why this is
> >
> > There are two reasons for this:
> >
> > 1. it is a mechanical supercharger, not a turbocharger and;
> >
> > 2. full boost is allowable at sea-level.
> >
> > You can leave the prop and throttle full-forward as you climb out and
the
> MAP will decrease with altitude just like a normally aspirated engine.
> >
> > > but in my experiments with fuel flow and altitude I have found that
> > > between 11,500 and 12,500 are best. Of course this is not to be done
> > > without O2 for the weakest link in the chain, the pilot.
> >
> > I have also found the most efficient altitude for the CJ6A to be around
> 11,000'. As for O2, that is a function of the individual. The only way
to
> know for sure whether you need O2 at 12,500 is to use a pulse-oximeter to
> measure the O2 content in your blood. When I was younger and lived at
> 7,000' in Colorado I found that I was fine for long periods at 14,500. I
> suffered none of the effects of hypoxia at that altitude. Now I am not
> comfortable for any length of time at 12,500 without O2.
> >
> > > I think, rather than re-gearing the M14P it would be worth looking
> > > into a second stage supercharger with a pressure limiting switch.
> > > What this would do is switch in the second stage above a certain
> > > pressure altitude. Therefore better altitude and better X-country
> > > performance without the penalty of flying at lower altitudes.
> >
> > Since the supercharger is geared to the engine anyway that is pretty
hard
> to do without total redesign of the engine. OTOH, it would be possible to
> effectively create a second stage by adding a turbocharger. I believe
that
> was done in the B-17 and P-38 so there is prior art to adding
turbochargers
> to supercharged round engines.
> >
> > > I have a fantastic book which I got from a yard sale two years ago
> > > which was written in 1943 by GM about this subject. Great book and
> > > written in stupid person English, hence my understanding of the
> > > subject. Great bit of history. It draws conclusions about Japanese
> > > engine design and the reasons for the Zero being the way it is
> > > against US doctrine on engine design. It stated that all engine
> > > design is a compromise to give the best performance at a given
> > > altitude.
> >
> > You are certainly correct on that. Every engine is a compromise for
> operating conditions. Still, if we know how the engine works, it is a
> fairly straight-forward path to determining what is likely to be most
> efficient.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
> > brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
> > +1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
> > GMT-4
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
should I have not taken the YAK 50 to 19,000ft? Time was 20 mins to get to that
height. from 10K onwards I made a point of rapid and deep breathing. I thought
a short period was OK.? I don't smoke either consider myself healthy with 80/
120 blood.
comments Brian......?
BTW, the 50 was still going up at 500fpm at that alt.
>I suffered none of the effects
>of hypoxia at that altitude. Now I am not comfortable for any length of
>time at 12,500 without O2.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
The YAK 50 and 52 DO HAVE as standard fit carb heat, if you intend operations when
ambient is near +5'c you will need the carb heat.
Russian mechanics usually removed it as the design leads to cracks, its just that
when you bought your a/c it was removed.
Contest a/c like the 55 did not appear to have carb heat as standard, in the UK
we fit one (mandatory) as a 55 stopped on finals landing short, inverted due
to carb ice.
Dean, no need to design one, just buy a Y52 one and change the angle of the left
side horn to clear the throttle rod, you need to be able to weld ally though.
Like the PS5 carb the M14 carb is less prone to ice but it can be especially when
at idle on the ground warming the engine. Ever wondered why it runs rough then
stops, you start it again a moment later and all appears well?
cheers, MJ
Any and all thoughts on the carb heat system on a Yak 50/52, or any M14
powered bird?
Most 50's I have seen DO NOT have carb heat, in discussions with some Suhkio
owners they say their nice new aircraft DO NOT have carb heat at all.
I am considering building a nice intake scoop for the 50, and canning all
the broken junk in my carb heat box. Just not sure about "out smarting" the
manufacturer, they put it on for a reason? Now they don't on the Suhkio? Did
it ever need it? OPINIONS PLEASE............
Thanks,
Dean Courtney
Yak 50 84-2805
deancourtney696@hotmail.com
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Carb Heat
It was correct to say that the Sukhoi system has no carb heat in the sense of an
interchangeable system. What it does have is a crude system whereby the engine
receives a mixture of cold air from the front (however the design of the intake
is such that unfortunately the amount of cold ram air is quite small) and
this is mixed with warm air from behind the engine.
On one hand it does result in a simpler system, but on the other definitely less
power, and the engine performance will be enhanced if pure cold air is ducted,
and particularly if this is done in conjunction with a ram-effect.
The carburettor of the M14P is unusually resistant to carb-ice, but with the Sukhoi
system, ducting only cold air into the carburettor, and in albeit obvious
icing conditions, we found quite bad icing!
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Newport House
Almeley
Herefordshire
HR3 6LL
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 (0) 1544 322200
Mob: 44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: 44 (0) 1544 322208
www.russianaeros.com
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the http://www.anti84787.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Range/Power
Clearly the 400-hp will use more power than the 360-hp, but only when delivering
the extra power.
Vedeneyev, the designer, says that at the same power settings, fuel consumption
is the same. Remember that fuel consumption can vary considerably from engine
to engine by virtue of changing the air compensating jet.
It is correct to say that the critical altitude of these engines is at sea level
- ie you cannot "over-boost" at any altitude.
In passing, the new 450-hp M14R is boosting at 1150mm (as opposed to about 870mm
for the 360-hp and 1040mm for the 400-hp). This equates to just over 45inches
of boost.
Richard Goode
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Newport House
Almeley
Herefordshire
HR3 6LL
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 (0) 1544 322200
Mob: 44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: 44 (0) 1544 322208
www.russianaeros.com
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the http://www.anti84787.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
Which was my point about the supercharger.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Goode
Subject: Yak-List: Range/Power
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode"
<richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Range/Power
Clearly the 400-hp will use more power than the 360-hp, but only when
delivering the extra power.
Vedeneyev, the designer, says that at the same power settings, fuel
consumption is the same. Remember that fuel consumption can vary
considerably from engine to engine by virtue of changing the air
compensating jet.
It is correct to say that the critical altitude of these engines is at sea
level - ie you cannot "over-boost" at any altitude.
In passing, the new 450-hp M14R is boosting at 1150mm (as opposed to about
870mm for the 360-hp and 1040mm for the 400-hp). This equates to just over
45inches of boost.
Richard Goode
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Newport House
Almeley
Herefordshire
HR3 6LL
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 (0) 1544 322200
Mob: 44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: 44 (0) 1544 322208
www.russianaeros.com
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the http://www.anti84787.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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: | density altitude and O2 for humans |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Rick Basiliere wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rick Basiliere" <discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> There are times here (Colorado) in the summer the Density Altitude is close
> to 10K on the ground as far as O2 at night - I wonder what the cop would say
> when we get stopped going to the airport using O2 because the ground is
> above 5K. Oh to have the worries of a flatlander...:-) Rick
Actually, DA isn't an issue for a human since the body heats/cools the air in the
lungs to the same temperature and humidity. You only need to consider pressure
altitude.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
GMT-4
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: density altitude and O2 for humans |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Why would the cops stop you for using Oxygen? There are 1000s of oxygen
dependent people. My brother-in-law uses oxygen constantly for a medical
problem. He drives and the cops don't stop him. We are at about 600 msl.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Aeroncas every day
Quarterly newsletters on time
Reasonable document reprints
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Yak-List: density altitude and O2 for humans
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> Rick Basiliere wrote:
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Rick Basiliere" <discrab@earthlink.net>
> >
> > There are times here (Colorado) in the summer the Density Altitude is
close
> > to 10K on the ground as far as O2 at night - I wonder what the cop would
say
> > when we get stopped going to the airport using O2 because the ground is
> > above 5K. Oh to have the worries of a flatlander...:-) Rick
>
> Actually, DA isn't an issue for a human since the body heats/cools the air
in the lungs to the same temperature and humidity. You only need to
consider pressure altitude.
>
> --
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
> brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
> +1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
> GMT-4
>
>
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: MAP and RPM (was: range) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Walt Lannon wrote:
>>It is still a moot point because the specification for maximum MAP is
>> ambient pressure plus 85mm-Hg so you can still use full boost below sea
>> level.
>
> Yep! I don't know where you would have to go to get that low an altitude.
Death Valley will get you -200 MSL. Also there is a valley below sea level in
Israel whose name escapes me at the moment.
> I think I have pretty closely paraphrased the P&W definition. METO and max.
> continuous are usually the same.
Except in the Huosai they aren't. TO power is 2350 RPM with a MAP of ambient pressure
plus 85mm Hg and is good for 5 min. METO power is 2250 RPM with a MAP
of ambient plus 80mm Hg and is good for one hour. Max continuous power is 2250
RPM and 710mm Hg. Every engine is just a little bit different and you need
to know the specifics for that engine.
> Take-off power is a specific increase above
> METO and is time limited (for the 1340 it's 600 HP @ 2250 and 36" for a max.
> of 5 mins.). These specs. (TO, METO, MAX. CONT.) are specified by the
> manufacturer for a specific fuel grade. They have, I believe, been
> down-graded in some of the larger engines for lower octane fuels. The R985
> and R1340 were recertified at the same levels for 80/87 when 91/98 was
> discontinued.
So you see, there are differences between the engines. But is is good to know
how and why these works so you can make sensible decisions about operating your
engine(s). The generalities are the same while the details are different.
>>Well actually, if you leave the throttle alone, the MAP will decrease with
>> altitude anyway. But you are allowed to continue opening the throttle in
>> order to maintain that 32.5 in-Hg MAP since the "blower" has excess boost.
>
> Agreed and I rarely ever use rated (max.climb) power for more than a few
> minutes - burns too much gas!
So many things in life are dictated by money rather than physics.
> Interesting concept, reducing RPM with a fixed throttle opening and a MAP
> above ambient should, as you suggest, reduce the MAP. But, having,
> figuratively, grown up with radial engines the rule is etched on my brain -
> Pitch down (inc. RPM) then Power up and Power down then Pitch up (dec. RPM).
> Strangely enough P&W seem to agree with this rule. This is probably due (in
> the open throttle, RPM down case) to an increasing propeller load that could
> exceed the power reduction of reduced MAP.
You lost me on that one. I know I was taught on flat engines to make MAP reduction
then RPM reduction when reducing power and RPM increase then MAP increase
when increasing power. But that was when dealing with engines that had green
arcs for both MAP and RPM. I don't believe that is entirely valid when dealing
with radials.
> The CJ manual does give some specific power specs. other than TO and rated.
> 65% @ 1950 & 660(26") and 50% @ 1790 & 600(23.6") for the Huosai 6A.
These are just power settings, not MAP/RPM limits. Consider that they have made
substantial RPM decreases below the numbers Sly was recommending again suggesting
that substantial RPM reduction with relatively high MAP is the norm.
> I think
> if one tries to maintain close to that spread there should be no problem.
> They run out of puff so quickly with altitude that overboosting is unlikely
> but overstressing of pistons and rods could be a concern with low MAP and
> high RPM.
So what you are saying is that the book supports my suggestion that one should
keep the MAP up and reduce the RPM? I do know that radial engines do not like
high RPM, low MAP operation (prop driving the engine).
>>>The fact that Bud Granley was able to reduce power in the Sea Fury in
>>>this manner in no way recommends this procedure for the engines we
>>>are operating.
>>
>>The point I was making is that a radical RPM reduction will also bring a
>
> radical reduction in MAP. As long as one does not exceed the maximum MAP
> for a given RPM setting, one can continue to reduce RPM without reducing
> MAP.
>
> Do you mean " without increasing MAP" ?
What is the full-throttle MAP in an R4360 at take-off RPM? I bet it is a whole
bunch more than 30". The key point is that Bud was probably able to get the
engine down to something like 40% power just by reducing the RPM and letting that
reduce boost.
> I am never correct in all cases!
I have to be. I am such a pedantic ass that if I am not, people can't wait to
jump all over me. :-)
(Pedantic: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned.)
(Ha, and my perhaps-soon-to-be-ex-wife says I am humor impaired.)
> Using the term waste gate for the 4360 was
> a brain fart. I was thinking of some type of MAP relief valve though I have
> no idea if there is such a valve.
I am not aware of one in radial engines although they are common in turbosupercharged
engines commonly used in GA aircraft (spam cans).
> Now that you have forced me to really
> think (which gives me a headache) about all this I would suggest that the
> negative result of the open throttle, reduce RPM approach is increased
> propeller loading that could result in internal engine damage.
That is where the torque limit comes in. All the R4360 installations of which
I am aware also had a torque indicator and a torque limitation. If one reduced
the RPM slowly there would not likely be a torque increase caused by a sudden
change in prop pitch. In fact, as the RPM came back, the boost would decrease
which would decrease the BMEP thus the torque would decrease as well.
> In Bud,s case with the Sea Fury this was an emergency situation and that
> action had the desired result - a safe landing.
Agreed. The point I was making is that this was an example of where a radical
reduction in RPM reduced power without causing a problem for the engine. I wasn't
there to look at the gauges but it may be that he didn't exceed the operating
limitations on the engine. The biggest problem I see is the excessive residual
thrust (actually thinking of the engine running at full-throttle as "residual
thrust" is pretty funny) but he dealt with that using drag.
>>The supercharger in the R1340 is capable of overboosting the engine
>>(exceeding maximum allowable MAP) thus leading to a critical altitude above
>>which the engine cannot maintain rated power. The Huosai and Vendeneyev
>>engines are already running with maximum boost at sea level so they are
>>losing power already as they climb. Therefore I suspect you very well may
>>be right.
>
> Yeah, but it hurts at the fuel pump!
That is true, and I think that is part of what started this whole discussion.
The whole point of this thread is to get people thinking about power settings and
how there is a whole world of valid, useful power settings that are different
than what their instructor taught them back when first transitioning to a C-182
or a Bonanza. Radial engines are happy and more efficient at lower RPM settings
with higher MAPs than we would consider running in our spam cans. Always
operating the Huosai engine at 2100 or 2200 RPM is not necessarily conducive
to happiness and long engine life. It certainly reduces range and decreases
efficiency. Yes, you need the power for acro but when you are just driving
from here to there, give your wallet and engine a rest and pull that prop control
waaaay back.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
GMT-4
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd"
> <mark@yakuk.com>
>
> should I have not taken the YAK 50 to 19,000ft? Time was 20 mins to
> get to that height. from 10K onwards I made a point of rapid and deep
> breathing. I thought a short period was OK.? I don't smoke either
> consider myself healthy with 80/ 120 blood.
>
> comments Brian......?
Different people have different tolerance for altitude. Deep breathing will improve
oxygenation of the blood but it can be difficult for people to keep up since
breathing is something we do without thinking about it. Rapid breathing
can cause hyperventilation and unconsciousness so you need to be careful not to
err on that side.
You may have been just fine at that altitude doing what you were doing. I know
that I would have had difficulty. When I lived and exercised at 7000', 16,000'
was nothing to me. Now that I live a relatively sedentary life near sea-level,
I require O2 at 12,500'. My cardiovascular system is just not as efficient
as it was.
BTW, my hypobaric chamber training showed me that my major hypoxic symptoms are
loss of short-term memory, tunnel vision, and headache. They are obvious to
me long before loss of useful consciousness.
> BTW, the 50 was still going up at 500fpm at that alt.
So, strap on a mask and tell us how high it will really go.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
GMT-4
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Richard Goode wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode"
> <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
>
> Range/Power
>
> Clearly the 400-hp will use more power than the 360-hp, but only when
> delivering the extra power.
I imagine they are very close but the increase supercharger RPM does require more
power and if the throttle is not fully open, the 400 hp engine will experience
greater pumping losses. I think Mark Jefferies' comment about a 2L/hr increase
in fuel burn at the same power setting makes a lot of sense.
TANSTAAFL
(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.)
> Vedeneyev, the designer, says that at the same power settings, fuel
> consumption is the same. Remember that fuel consumption can vary
> considerably from engine to engine by virtue of changing the air
> compensating jet.
That is true and a 2L/hr difference is probably almost noise level when your normal
fuel burn is 60 L/hr.
> It is correct to say that the critical altitude of these engines is
> at sea level - ie you cannot "over-boost" at any altitude.
>
> In passing, the new 450-hp M14R is boosting at 1150mm (as opposed to
> about 870mm for the 360-hp and 1040mm for the 400-hp). This equates
> to just over 45inches of boost.
That is a lot of extra kick.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
GMT-4
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: | WAS: Fod for Thought (Now an insurance clarification . . . |
. :0
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
In regards to FOD in Yk52
Jorgen Nielsen wrote:
"A bright torch and mirror will also let you inspect areas out of your reach."
He means a FLASHLIGHT!!
Please!
TJ
**********************************
Thomas Johnson
Senior Account Executive
1983 Yak 52
Tel: 800-851-2997
Fax: 480-951-1455
Cell: 602-628-2701
E: tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
ADDRESS CHANGE: New Suite # is 204
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | US Headset wiring for YAK |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Aubrey Price <aprice@vartec.net>
I want to wire a set of US headsets into my YAK 52. Does anyone have the
details of how to wire them. I opened the plug on the Russian headset and
don't understand what they did. There are four wires. One for ground, one
that goes high on transmit, and two that carry audio. If you cut either one
of the audio wires, the headset audio decrease. I was expecting one ground,
one mic high, and one speaker/headset high.
Aubrey Price
N288Y
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: | Re: US Headset wiring for YAK |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Aubrey Price wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Aubrey Price <aprice@vartec.net>
>
> I want to wire a set of US headsets into my YAK 52. Does anyone have the
> details of how to wire them. I opened the plug on the Russian headset and
> don't understand what they did. There are four wires. One for ground, one
> that goes high on transmit, and two that carry audio. If you cut either one
> of the audio wires, the headset audio decrease. I was expecting one ground,
> one mic high, and one speaker/headset high.
I could make some guesses. I would guess that it is balanced and has a grounded
center tap. If you get rid of one leg you still have half the signal to ground
from the other half, kind of like hot-neutral-hot wiring in a typical US house.
But without the actual diagrams, I can say for sure.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
GMT-4
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Halverson <william@netpros.net>
Ah .. finally I see what the max power manifold pressure should be on my
400HP engine. All the manuals talk about engine performance for the 360HP
machines. 120+ hours on it and I still don't know what the 'correct' fuel
consumption and power setting are ...
And how does one know when one has the ' correct ' air-compensating jet
installed? My a/c did not have the kit with the various jets shipped with
it ...
Does anyone have the engine performance tables similar to the ones in the
manuals for the 400 and 450 HP engines?
Are they on a web site somewhere?
Bill Halverson
400HP YAK-55
PS wouldn't that be 15" of boost, considering no boost would be ~30"?
At 04:45 AM 10/20/2003, Richard Goode wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode"
><richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
>
>Range/Power
>
>Clearly the 400-hp will use more power than the 360-hp, but only when
>delivering the extra power.
>
>Vedeneyev, the designer, says that at the same power settings, fuel
>consumption is the same. Remember that fuel consumption can vary
>considerably from engine to engine by virtue of changing the air
>compensating jet.
>
>It is correct to say that the critical altitude of these engines is at sea
>level - ie you cannot "over-boost" at any altitude.
>
>In passing, the new 450-hp M14R is boosting at 1150mm (as opposed to about
>870mm for the 360-hp and 1040mm for the 400-hp). This equates to just over
>45inches of boost.
>
>Richard Goode
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Halverson <william@netpros.net>
Ah .. finally I see what the max power manifold pressure should be on my
400HP engine. All the manuals talk about engine performance for the 360HP
machines. 120+ hours on it and I still don't know what the 'correct' fuel
consumption and power setting are ...
And how does one know when one has the ' correct ' air-compensating jet
installed? My a/c did not have the kit with the various jets shipped with
it ...
Does anyone have the engine performance tables similar to the ones in the
manuals for the 400 and 450 HP engines?
Are they on a web site somewhere?
Bill Halverson
400HP YAK-55
PS wouldn't that be 15" of boost, considering no boost would be ~30"?
At 04:45 AM 10/20/2003, Richard Goode wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode"
><richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
>
>Range/Power
>
>Clearly the 400-hp will use more power than the 360-hp, but only when
>delivering the extra power.
>
>Vedeneyev, the designer, says that at the same power settings, fuel
>consumption is the same. Remember that fuel consumption can vary
>considerably from engine to engine by virtue of changing the air
>compensating jet.
>
>It is correct to say that the critical altitude of these engines is at sea
>level - ie you cannot "over-boost" at any altitude.
>
>In passing, the new 450-hp M14R is boosting at 1150mm (as opposed to about
>870mm for the 360-hp and 1040mm for the 400-hp). This equates to just over
>45inches of boost.
>
>Richard Goode
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Danger of one way valve sticking shut. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Aubrey Price <aprice@vartec.net>
I just got off the phone will Jill and Carl. Carl suggested I put this out
for everyone to think about.
When we bought our YAK52 aircraft, I noticed that the reserve air pressure
was at about 75 ATM. I lowered the pressure and ask why. The pilot told me
that he had seen the pressure go up to 80ATM at times. This didn't make me
feel great. I had time this weekend to investigate and reasoned that if the
one way valve on the firewall from the external filler, were to stick
closed, this could happen. Sounded very unlikely to me. When I opened that
valve I found that there was a pitted area in the barrel and evidence (
nicks ) that the pitted area was in a place that could cause the piston
shirt to hang and prevent the valve from opening. I installed new seals and
put the valve back together without smoothing the pitted area ( experiment
). We pressured the aircraft up, and it stuck the first time. The reserve
air started up and main didn't. At 55ATM, we stopped and blew the system
down. The pop off was set for 48 ATM. I removed the valve and cleaned the
area in question, used a Dremal tool to smooth the edges, polished
everything including the piston and it edges. Works fine now. If this valve
were to stick closed, it could over pressure the reserve tank and explode.
This valve is up stream of the pop off so the pop off would not work.
Aubrey Price and Jim Bowerman
N288Y
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: ByronMFox@aol.com
Do we have any members who fly CJs any where near the Fort Walton
Beach/Niceville area of the Florida panhandle? Thanks, Blitz
Byron M. Fox
80 Milland Drive
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Home 415-380-0907
Cell 415-307-2405
Fax 415-380-0917
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
North Central Florida here, Ocala.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: <ByronMFox@aol.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Florida CJs
> --> Yak-List message posted by: ByronMFox@aol.com
>
> Do we have any members who fly CJs any where near the Fort Walton
> Beach/Niceville area of the Florida panhandle? Thanks, Blitz
>
> Byron M. Fox
> 80 Milland Drive
> Mill Valley, CA 94941
> Home 415-380-0907
> Cell 415-307-2405
> Fax 415-380-0917
>
>
Message 21
| 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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: N4829T@aol.com
Hilton Head, SC here..
Jim Plumlee
Message 22
| 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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
North central Florida.
FD44 30nm west of Daytona.
Eagle's Nest Aerodrome.
Home of the hanging chad. Heck even California has 'em now.
"As goes Florida so goes the Nation"
Hell! Even Lloyd can drop here!
Jim Goolsby
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
"The reason older men are like fine wine. When young, they are like grapes
until some woman stomps all over them."
Unknown older man.
Message 23
| 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: | Yak-52/50 Canopy Glass |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Tim
Try this link. http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver
There's all kinds of links both YAK and CJ related.
Look for the Cee Bailey's link for windscreens/canopies.
Frank
Yak-52
N9110M
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Subject: Yak-List: Yak-52/50 Canopy Glass
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <niftyyak50@msn.com>
Does anyone know if the yak-52 canopy (windshield, slider, and rear)
will
fit on the 50? I have heard the 50 will accept the 52 slider but not the
rest. Anyone know where I can get the 50 canopy glass?
Thanks!
Tim
PS. Mounted the Iris Gills on my 50 today and they look great! They were
a
breeze to put on and now what is left is the rigging. I will be selling
my
old louvers if anyone is interested!
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy
patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE!
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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! --
|