Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:09 AM - M-14b Timing (Michael Bolton)
2. 06:33 AM - Re: M-14b Timing (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 08:00 AM - Re: hydro lock (DaBear)
4. 10:52 AM - G-meter for sale? (Tom Johnson)
5. 11:39 AM - Re: M-14b Timing (Cliff Coy)
6. 02:56 PM - Re: M-14b Timing (A. Dennis Savarese)
7. 04:17 PM - Re: M-14b Timing (Walter Lannon)
8. 04:33 PM - Re: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600 (Roger Bieberdorf)
9. 05:35 PM - Re: M-14b Timing (A. Dennis Savarese)
10. 05:35 PM - Re: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600 (A. Dennis Savarese)
11. 07:09 PM - Re: hydro lock (Lynn Allen)
12. 07:56 PM - Re: hydro lock (DaBear)
13. 08:12 PM - Re: hydro lock (Lynn Allen)
14. 08:51 PM - Re: G-meter for sale? (Roger Baker)
15. 08:52 PM - TAS at Alt for Yak52 flight planning (Mark Scrivener)
16. 09:05 PM - OSH 2008 (cjpilot710@aol.com)
17. 11:06 PM - Re: M-14b Timing (Walter Lannon)
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 |
|
Does anyone out there know the initial Mag timing for the M-14b? yes
that is a "B" I only have the manual for the P model. The "B" has mags
with centerfugal advance.
Thanks for any help you guys might be able to supply.
Michael J. Bolton, Vice President
Young Forest Products, Inc.
(O)803.438.4259
(C)803.427.0604
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: M-14b Timing |
I'm working on it Michael and will get back to you with the information.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Bolton
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
Does anyone out there know the initial Mag timing for the M-14b? yes
that is a "B" I only have the manual for the P model. The "B" has mags
with centerfugal advance.
Thanks for any help you guys might be able to supply.
Michael J. Bolton, Vice President
Young Forest Products, Inc.
(O)803.438.4259
(C)803.427.0604
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 |
|
So I'm going to weight in here. I've had the oil shut off valve (with
starter cut-off) and oil scavenge pump for a while. I got it from
Kimbal's in FL. I absolutely love it, with no (zero), nada, zip,
reservations. I have to admit that I have tried to start it with the
valve in the off position, it doesn't start. With it in place, I have
had almost no oil in the system at all and if there is, there is not
enough to hydro lock the engine.
The only thing I would suggest is that you drain the engine with
electric pump after shut down. Takes about 45-60 seconds. Then after a
few min, drain the rest of the oil again. I'll usually do the second
drain pump for 10-15 seconds after I've started to button up the
airplane. This lets some of the oil drain down to the extraction point
so you get all of it.
Expensive, well, you decide. But I like not worrying about hydro lock.
I like having a clean hanger floor. I like not leaving much of an oil
slick at clinics. The only danger is that:
1. I could start it with it in the off position (not going to happen
with the cut-off).
2. I could shut off the oil in flight (That should never happen)
You make the call.
DaBear
Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
> Read Brian Lloyd's reply to this one for the best of advice, but let me
> just add a few things:
>
> 1. I own a YAK-50 with intake drains, and due to a slightly leaky ball
> check valve in my oil pump I get oil into the cylinders very quickly.
> In a month of no flying I can actually lose up to 3 GALLONS of oil. If
> I fly every two weeks or so, that never happens.
>
> 2. Each person has his or her own method for getting oil out of the
> cylinders, Brian's method being the most safe obviously.
>
> 3. Probably the best method I saw of everyone listed was on Sergei
> Boriak's SU-31 (before it crashed). Sergei was sick and tired of oil in
> the cylinders and having to pull it through EVERY time.
>
> A. He spent a huge amount of $$$ and had new pistons put in with gapless
> rings. Much more was done here than I will list, but the rings made a
> big difference.
>
> B. The best trick was that he installed an OIL VALVE in the oil supply
> line to the engine. Yes, there is an obvious danger in doing that. He
> put in the typical safety steps with starter inhibitors, etc. etc. And
> I am sure, a lot of people will say it is still too dangerous. So if
> you feel that way, good for you. Keep yanking the plugs. On the flip
> side, shutting off the oil supply pretty much puts an END to this
> problem.
>
> C. The last step was to install an engine sump line going to an
> electrical pump. After landing and shutting the engine down, you run
> the pump and the oil from the sump is pumped back into the main oil
> tank.
>
> You combine all three and you have a very dry engine, no oil on the
> ground, and no need to pull it through, and no chance of hydrostatic
> locks.
>
> I'm going to go with the main tank oil shut off valve, with push pull
> control from the cockpit.
>
> Mark
> N50YK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> Poehlmann
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:58
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: hydro lock
>
> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> I have an intake drain set up on my Yak 55M, and it prevents MOST
> hydro-lock conditions, however, it is still possible to have enough oil
> in a cylinder which, when cold won't come out through the relatively
> small diameter intake drain and you end up needing to pull the plugs. In
> my case that has happened twice in the past 4 years, but it does
> occasionally happen. Usually when I haven't flown the plane for more
> than 2 weeks.
>
>
>
> Another good reason to go fly...<VBG>
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andy Hawes
> Sent: Friday, 14 September, 2007 09:22
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: hydro lock
>
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Future M14P pilot here -- wouldn't using a quick drain valve
> collecting from cylinders 4, 5 and 6 be an alternative to pulling the
> plugs? I'm not sure if the Yak folks have/use these drains or not and
> I'm just trying to verify if pulling the plugs AND using a drain valve
> are necessary -
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Andy
> www.radialrocketman.com
> Nashville, TN
> andy717@comcast.net
>
>
> On 9/13/07 7:49 PM, "HodgeJW@aol.com" <HodgeJW@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> I was flying friends Yak 50 today (Tim G). I parked it for about 15 min.
> when I went back to start it, I debated about whether to pull the prop
> thru or not. I mean it was only 15 min. right? I only pull my 52 thru
> first flight of the day. Well good thing I did, it was locked SOLID.
> Pulled the cowls, and bottom plugs, and you wouldn't believe the amount
> of oil that came out. From now on, if I walk away from it, I'll pull it
> thru. On another note, man will a 50 tumble!!!! Damn, I love that plane.
> Here lately I've been flying some hotrods (Pitts S2C Suk 29 Extra 300)
> but this 50 has some serious personality. I cant thank Tim enough for
> letting me have access to this beast. Thanks man.
>
> Jay
>
>
>
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: | G-meter for sale? |
Looking for a new or used G-meter for a Yak 52 (not the same as a Nanchang
unit).
Anybody have one sitting around (for sale) that works?
Please reply directly: tomjohnson@cox.net
Tj
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson, Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701 or Toll Free: 866-475-9199
E: tomjohnson@cox.net or Fax: 623-321-5843
Free Quote: <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/> www.airpowerinsurance.com
* Privacy <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/apower_privacy.pdf>
Information
** NO insurance can be started or changed by email until confirmed in
writing.
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: | Re: M-14b Timing |
The spark advance for the M14 series engines is 22-24 degrees BTDC.
If you have M9-35M magnetos, there is a degree stamp on the mating face
of the magneto body under the mag cap.
This stamp is typically between 23 and 37 degrees.
To compensate for the centrifugal advance of the mag use the following
formula:
23 - (degree stamp / 1.25) = timing mark on the cylinder pointer in #4
cylinder.
If you're timing the engine via prop flange, then you will need to
multiply the above result by the reduction gear ratio.
On M14-P it's .658
On M14-B it's .787
So....with a "36" degree stamped magneto-
23- (36/1.25) = -5.8 or 6 degrees *after* top dead center as seen on the
cylinder pointer.
at the prop flange of an M14-P: 5.8 * .658 = 3.8 or 4 degrees ATDC
at the prop flange of an M14-B: 5.8 * .787 = 4.5 degrees ATDC
Cheers,
Cliff
Michael Bolton wrote:
> Does anyone out there know the initial Mag timing for the M-14b? yes
> that is a "B" I only have the manual for the P model. The "B" has
> mags with centerfugal advance.
>
> Thanks for any help you guys might be able to supply.
>
> Michael J. Bolton, Vice President
> Young Forest Products, Inc.
> (O)803.438.4259
> (C)803.427.0604
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
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: M-14b Timing |
The only thing I would add is be sure the Mags are M9-35's as stamped on the
data plate just above the P lead and coil cover. If they are other than the
M9-35's, please post to the list.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Coy" <cliff@gesoco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
>
> The spark advance for the M14 series engines is 22-24 degrees BTDC.
>
> If you have M9-35M magnetos, there is a degree stamp on the mating face of
> the magneto body under the mag cap.
> This stamp is typically between 23 and 37 degrees.
>
> To compensate for the centrifugal advance of the mag use the following
> formula:
>
> 23 - (degree stamp / 1.25) = timing mark on the cylinder pointer in #4
> cylinder.
>
> If you're timing the engine via prop flange, then you will need to
> multiply the above result by the reduction gear ratio.
>
> On M14-P it's .658
> On M14-B it's .787
>
> So....with a "36" degree stamped magneto-
>
> 23- (36/1.25) = -5.8 or 6 degrees *after* top dead center as seen on the
> cylinder pointer.
>
> at the prop flange of an M14-P: 5.8 * .658 = 3.8 or 4 degrees ATDC
> at the prop flange of an M14-B: 5.8 * .787 = 4.5 degrees ATDC
>
> Cheers,
> Cliff
>
>
> Michael Bolton wrote:
>
>> Does anyone out there know the initial Mag timing for the M-14b? yes
>> that is a "B" I only have the manual for the P model. The "B" has mags
>> with centerfugal advance. Thanks for any help you guys might be able to
>> supply.
>> Michael J. Bolton, Vice President
>> Young Forest Products, Inc.
>> (O)803.438.4259
>> (C)803.427.0604
>>
>>*
>>
>>
>>*
>>
>
>
>
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: | Re: M-14b Timing |
Dennis;
They could be M9-25M mags (23 to 27 degs of advance) on the M14B. I suspect
that the "B" is a lower RPM engine than the "M". In any case Cliff's
instructions would still apply.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> The only thing I would add is be sure the Mags are M9-35's as stamped on
> the data plate just above the P lead and coil cover. If they are other
> than the M9-35's, please post to the list.
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cliff Coy" <cliff@gesoco.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
>
>
>>
>> The spark advance for the M14 series engines is 22-24 degrees BTDC.
>>
>> If you have M9-35M magnetos, there is a degree stamp on the mating face
>> of the magneto body under the mag cap.
>> This stamp is typically between 23 and 37 degrees.
>>
>> To compensate for the centrifugal advance of the mag use the following
>> formula:
>>
>> 23 - (degree stamp / 1.25) = timing mark on the cylinder pointer in #4
>> cylinder.
>>
>> If you're timing the engine via prop flange, then you will need to
>> multiply the above result by the reduction gear ratio.
>>
>> On M14-P it's .658
>> On M14-B it's .787
>>
>> So....with a "36" degree stamped magneto-
>>
>> 23- (36/1.25) = -5.8 or 6 degrees *after* top dead center as seen on the
>> cylinder pointer.
>>
>> at the prop flange of an M14-P: 5.8 * .658 = 3.8 or 4 degrees ATDC
>> at the prop flange of an M14-B: 5.8 * .787 = 4.5 degrees ATDC
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Cliff
>>
>>
>> Michael Bolton wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone out there know the initial Mag timing for the M-14b? yes
>>> that is a "B" I only have the manual for the P model. The "B" has mags
>>> with centerfugal advance. Thanks for any help you guys might be able to
>>> supply.
>>> Michael J. Bolton, Vice President
>>> Young Forest Products, Inc.
>>> (O)803.438.4259
>>> (C)803.427.0604
>>>
>>>*
>>>
>>>
>>>*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600 |
You can be negative about this all you want. I do business with the FAA and find
that there are many good people in that organization mixed in with the ordinary
component of "ineffective" employees who will not proceed with ordinary and
sensible decisions. This is not unlike many other organizations...public and
private. But! if someone did not take a positive attitude toward this entire
matter than the change in 8130.2f would NEVER have taken place. So thanks for
the well wishes....I will try it when I do my request. rb
"A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com> wrote: Good luck on that
one.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Bieberdorf
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
How about anytime that a request for the change in the OL's is made, we also ask
if the Program Letter is STILL a necessity; and if it IS, then what do they
want us to include in that letter? Possibly it would become obvious that it should
be eliminated. If enough of the locals in the FSDO pointed out the obvious
to the Rule Writers; we might get it changed. rb
I completely agree. It doesn't make sense. But until such time as the
Order is revised to reflect no annual program letter of events, then we
still have to comply. Now think about this..... The FSDO's are having to
amend existing OL's and Airworthiness Certificates to delete the 300/600
mile proficiency area. When the revised Order comes out, guess what! They
are going to have to do it all over again if any of the statements in our
existing OL's are effectively rescinded in the revised Order. That includes
no annual program letter of events.
If the FAA were to just think ahead for a change, they could have easily
included a statement in the Memorandum that says, "To all FAA Inspectors.
This Memorandum, when carried in the aircraft, rescinds the 300/600 mile
proficiency area for all Experimental Exhibition aircraft." If they were to
again think ahead and figure out that an aircraft that has no proficiency
area limitation has really no need to submit an annual program letter of
events since the aircraft can take-off and land at any airport except Class
B airports anyway. Then they would do exactly the same thing for the
Schedule of Events letter.
What ever happened to the "Paperwork Reduction Act"?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "DaBear"
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
>
> Why would we need to send an annual letter that we are flying anywhere if
> we don't have to report leaving 300/600nm area? Doesn't make sense to
> tell them what airshow we are attending (we'll be on the waver) or it is
> the same as us flying to any other airport for proficiency.
>
> Dabear
>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> Answer.....Yes. Don't read anything into the Memorandum. The only
>> thing the Memorandum does is facilitate the elimination of the 300/600
>> mile proficiency area by amending the aircraft's operating limitations
>> and Airworthiness Certificate.
>> Dennis
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Mark Davis
>> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2007 9:47 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
>>
>> Does the change remove the need for the required annual letter to
>> the supervising FSDO? I've looked and can't find any mention of
>> the letter. Do we need to send them an annual reminder that we're
>> still operating the A/C in their area?
>> Mark Davis
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* A. Dennis Savarese
>> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2007 7:53 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
>>
>>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
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: M-14b Timing |
That's what I believe they are Walt. But I certainly could be wrong.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
>
> Dennis;
>
> They could be M9-25M mags (23 to 27 degs of advance) on the M14B. I
> suspect that the "B" is a lower RPM engine than the "M". In any case
> Cliff's instructions would still apply.
>
> Walt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
>
>
>> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>
>> The only thing I would add is be sure the Mags are M9-35's as stamped on
>> the data plate just above the P lead and coil cover. If they are other
>> than the M9-35's, please post to the list.
>> Dennis
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Cliff Coy" <cliff@gesoco.com>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The spark advance for the M14 series engines is 22-24 degrees BTDC.
>>>
>>> If you have M9-35M magnetos, there is a degree stamp on the mating face
>>> of the magneto body under the mag cap.
>>> This stamp is typically between 23 and 37 degrees.
>>>
>>> To compensate for the centrifugal advance of the mag use the following
>>> formula:
>>>
>>> 23 - (degree stamp / 1.25) = timing mark on the cylinder pointer in #4
>>> cylinder.
>>>
>>> If you're timing the engine via prop flange, then you will need to
>>> multiply the above result by the reduction gear ratio.
>>>
>>> On M14-P it's .658
>>> On M14-B it's .787
>>>
>>> So....with a "36" degree stamped magneto-
>>>
>>> 23- (36/1.25) = -5.8 or 6 degrees *after* top dead center as seen on the
>>> cylinder pointer.
>>>
>>> at the prop flange of an M14-P: 5.8 * .658 = 3.8 or 4 degrees ATDC
>>> at the prop flange of an M14-B: 5.8 * .787 = 4.5 degrees ATDC
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Cliff
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Bolton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anyone out there know the initial Mag timing for the M-14b? yes
>>>> that is a "B" I only have the manual for the P model. The "B" has
>>>> mags with centerfugal advance. Thanks for any help you guys might be
>>>> able to supply.
>>>> Michael J. Bolton, Vice President
>>>> Young Forest Products, Inc.
>>>> (O)803.438.4259
>>>> (C)803.427.0604
>>>>
>>>>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600 |
Roger, I sent an email to my local FSDO inspector suggesting there may
be a way to eliminate this paperwork nightmare (this is what he called
it) by having AIR 230 or AIR 200 amend the Memorandum to say something
like; "To all FAA inspectors. This Memorandum, when carried in the
aircraft, rescinds the 300/600 proficiency area for Experimental
Exhibition aircraft. I indicated when the revised Order is issued, he
and his fellow inspectors will be faced with doing this all over again
if any of the provision in the new Order delete any of the provisions in
the existing Operating Limitations. Such as the Annual Schedule of
Events or otherwise known as the Annual Program Letter.
We'll see what his response is. Hopefully he will send it upward.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Bieberdorf
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
You can be negative about this all you want. I do business with the
FAA and find that there are many good people in that organization mixed
in with the ordinary component of "ineffective" employees who will not
proceed with ordinary and sensible decisions. This is not unlike many
other organizations...public and private. But! if someone did not take
a positive attitude toward this entire matter than the change in 8130.2f
would NEVER have taken place. So thanks for the well wishes....I will
try it when I do my request. rb
"A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
Good luck on that one.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Bieberdorf
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
How about anytime that a request for the change in the OL's is
made, we also ask if the Program Letter is STILL a necessity; and if it
IS, then what do they want us to include in that letter? Possibly it
would become obvious that it should be eliminated. If enough of the
locals in the FSDO pointed out the obvious to the Rule Writers; we might
get it changed. rb
"A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
I completely agree. It doesn't make sense. But until such time
as the
Order is revised to reflect no annual program letter of events,
then we
still have to comply. Now think about this..... The FSDO's are
having to
amend existing OL's and Airworthiness Certificates to delete the
300/600
mile proficiency area. When the revised Order comes out, guess
what! They
are going to have to do it all over again if any of the
statements in our
existing OL's are effectively rescinded in the revised Order.
That includes
no annual program letter of events.
If the FAA were to just think ahead for a change, they could
have easily
included a statement in the Memorandum that says, "To all FAA
Inspectors.
This Memorandum, when carried in the aircraft, rescinds the
300/600 mile
proficiency area for all Experimental Exhibition aircraft." If
they were to
again think ahead and figure out that an aircraft that has no
proficiency
area limitation has really no need to submit an annual program
letter of
events since the aircraft can take-off and land at any airport
except Class
B airports anyway. Then they would do exactly the same thing for
the
Schedule of Events letter.
What ever happened to the "Paperwork Reduction Act"?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "DaBear"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
>
> Why would we need to send an annual letter that we are flying
anywhere if
> we don't have to report leaving 300/600nm area? Doesn't make
sense to
> tell them what airshow we are attending (we'll be on the
waver) or it is
> the same as us flying to any other airport for proficiency.
>
> Dabear
>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> Answer.....Yes. Don't read anything into the Memorandum. The
only
>> thing the Memorandum does is facilitate the elimination of
the 300/600
>> mile proficiency area by amending the aircraft's operating
limitations
>> and Airworthiness Certificate.
>> Dennis
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Mark Davis
>> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2007 9:47 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
>>
>> Does the change remove the need for the required annual
letter to
>> the supervising FSDO? I've looked and can't find any mention
of
>> the letter. Do we need to send them an annual reminder that
we're
>> still operating the A/C in their area?
>> Mark Davis
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* A. Dennis Savarese
>> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2007 7:53 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: FAA 8130.2f and 300/600
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
How much did the parts cost you??
TIA,
Lynn
DaBear <dabear@damned.org> wrote:
So I'm going to weight in here. I've had the oil shut off valve (with
starter cut-off) and oil scavenge pump for a while. I got it from
Kimbal's in FL. I absolutely love it, with no (zero), nada, zip,
reservations. I have to admit that I have tried to start it with the
valve in the off position, it doesn't start. With it in place, I have
had almost no oil in the system at all and if there is, there is not
enough to hydro lock the engine.
The only thing I would suggest is that you drain the engine with
electric pump after shut down. Takes about 45-60 seconds. Then after a
few min, drain the rest of the oil again. I'll usually do the second
drain pump for 10-15 seconds after I've started to button up the
airplane. This lets some of the oil drain down to the extraction point
so you get all of it.
Expensive, well, you decide. But I like not worrying about hydro lock.
I like having a clean hanger floor. I like not leaving much of an oil
slick at clinics. The only danger is that:
1. I could start it with it in the off position (not going to happen
with the cut-off).
2. I could shut off the oil in flight (That should never happen)
You make the call.
DaBear
Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E wrote:
>
> Read Brian Lloyd's reply to this one for the best of advice, but let me
> just add a few things:
>
> 1. I own a YAK-50 with intake drains, and due to a slightly leaky ball
> check valve in my oil pump I get oil into the cylinders very quickly.
> In a month of no flying I can actually lose up to 3 GALLONS of oil. If
> I fly every two weeks or so, that never happens.
>
> 2. Each person has his or her own method for getting oil out of the
> cylinders, Brian's method being the most safe obviously.
>
> 3. Probably the best method I saw of everyone listed was on Sergei
> Boriak's SU-31 (before it crashed). Sergei was sick and tired of oil in
> the cylinders and having to pull it through EVERY time.
>
> A. He spent a huge amount of $$$ and had new pistons put in with gapless
> rings. Much more was done here than I will list, but the rings made a
> big difference.
>
> B. The best trick was that he installed an OIL VALVE in the oil supply
> line to the engine. Yes, there is an obvious danger in doing that. He
> put in the typical safety steps with starter inhibitors, etc. etc. And
> I am sure, a lot of people will say it is still too dangerous. So if
> you feel that way, good for you. Keep yanking the plugs. On the flip
> side, shutting off the oil supply pretty much puts an END to this
> problem.
>
> C. The last step was to install an engine sump line going to an
> electrical pump. After landing and shutting the engine down, you run
> the pump and the oil from the sump is pumped back into the main oil
> tank.
>
> You combine all three and you have a very dry engine, no oil on the
> ground, and no need to pull it through, and no chance of hydrostatic
> locks.
>
> I'm going to go with the main tank oil shut off valve, with push pull
> control from the cockpit.
>
> Mark
> N50YK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> Poehlmann
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:58
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: hydro lock
>
> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> I have an intake drain set up on my Yak 55M, and it prevents MOST
> hydro-lock conditions, however, it is still possible to have enough oil
> in a cylinder which, when cold won't come out through the relatively
> small diameter intake drain and you end up needing to pull the plugs. In
> my case that has happened twice in the past 4 years, but it does
> occasionally happen. Usually when I haven't flown the plane for more
> than 2 weeks.
>
>
>
> Another good reason to go fly...
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andy Hawes
> Sent: Friday, 14 September, 2007 09:22
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: hydro lock
>
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Future M14P pilot here -- wouldn't using a quick drain valve
> collecting from cylinders 4, 5 and 6 be an alternative to pulling the
> plugs? I'm not sure if the Yak folks have/use these drains or not and
> I'm just trying to verify if pulling the plugs AND using a drain valve
> are necessary -
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Andy
> www.radialrocketman.com
> Nashville, TN
> andy717@comcast.net
>
>
> On 9/13/07 7:49 PM, "HodgeJW@aol.com" wrote:
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> I was flying friends Yak 50 today (Tim G). I parked it for about 15 min.
> when I went back to start it, I debated about whether to pull the prop
> thru or not. I mean it was only 15 min. right? I only pull my 52 thru
> first flight of the day. Well good thing I did, it was locked SOLID.
> Pulled the cowls, and bottom plugs, and you wouldn't believe the amount
> of oil that came out. From now on, if I walk away from it, I'll pull it
> thru. On another note, man will a 50 tumble!!!! Damn, I love that plane.
> Here lately I've been flying some hotrods (Pitts S2C Suk 29 Extra 300)
> but this 50 has some serious personality. I cant thank Tim enough for
> letting me have access to this beast. Thanks man.
>
> Jay
>
>
>
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 |
|
Lynn,
http://www.jimkimballenterprises.com/h_support_moose.html
Here is the url. The scavenge pump is 300 and shut off valve is 250.
Installation extra.
Dabear
Lynn Allen wrote:
> How much did the parts cost you??
>
> TIA,
>
> Lynn
>
> */DaBear <dabear@damned.org>/* wrote:
>
>
> So I'm going to weight in here. I've had the oil shut off valve (with
> starter cut-off) and oil scavenge pump for a while. I got it from
> Kimbal's in FL. I absolutely love it, with no (zero), nada, zip,
> reservations. I have to admit that I have tried to start it with the
> valve in the off position, it doesn't start. With it in place, I have
> had almost no oil in the system at all and if there is, there is not
> enough to hydro lock the engine.
>
> The only thing I would suggest is that you drain the engine with
> electric pump after shut down. Takes about 45-60 seconds. Then
> after a
> few min, drain the rest of the oil again. I'll usually do the second
> drain pump for 10-15 seconds after I've started to button up the
> airplane. This lets some of the oil drain down to the extraction
> point
> so you get all of it.
>
> Expensive, well, you decide. But I like not worrying about hydro
> lock.
> I like having a clean hanger floor. I like not leaving much of an oil
> slick at clinics. The only danger is that:
> 1. I could start it with it in the off position (not going to happen
> with the cut-off).
> 2. I could shut off the oil in flight (That should never happen)
>
> You make the call.
>
> DaBear
>
>
> Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E wrote:
> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> >
> > Read Brian Lloyd's reply to this one for the best of advice, but
> let me
> > just add a few things:
> >
> > 1. I own a YAK-50 with intake drains, and due to a slightly
> leaky ball
> > check valve in my oil pump I get oil into the cylinders very
> quickly.
> > In a month of no flying I can actually lose up to 3 GALLONS of
> oil. If
> > I fly every two weeks or so, that never happens.
> >
> > 2. Each person has his or her own method for getting oil out of the
> > cylinders, Brian's method being the most safe obviously.
> >
> > 3. Probably the best method I saw of everyone listed was on Sergei
> > Boriak's SU-31 (before it crashed). Sergei was sick and tired of
> oil in
> > the cylinders and having to pull it through EVERY time.
> >
> > A. He spent a huge amount of $$$ and had new pistons put in with
> gapless
> > rings. Much more was done here than I will list, but the rings
> made a
> > big difference.
> >
> > B. The best trick was that he installed an OIL VALVE in the oil
> supply
> > line to the engine. Yes, there is an obvious danger in doing
> that. He
> > put in the typical safety steps with starter inhibitors, etc.
> etc. And
> > I am sure, a lot of people will say it is still too dangerous. So if
> > you feel that way, good for you. Keep yanking the plugs. On the flip
> > side, shutting off the oil supply pretty much puts an END to this
> > problem.
> >
> > C. The last step was to install an engine sump line going to an
> > electrical pump. After landing and shutting the engine down, you run
> > the pump and the oil from the sump is pumped back into the main oil
> > tank.
> >
> > You combine all three and you have a very dry engine, no oil on the
> > ground, and no need to pull it through, and no chance of hydrostatic
> > locks.
> >
> > I'm going to go with the main tank oil shut off valve, with push
> pull
> > control from the cockpit.
> >
> > Mark
> > N50YK
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> > Poehlmann
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:58
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: hydro lock
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have an intake drain set up on my Yak 55M, and it prevents MOST
> > hydro-lock conditions, however, it is still possible to have
> enough oil
> > in a cylinder which, when cold won't come out through the relatively
> > small diameter intake drain and you end up needing to pull the
> plugs. In
> > my case that has happened twice in the past 4 years, but it does
> > occasionally happen. Usually when I haven't flown the plane for more
> > than 2 weeks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another good reason to go fly...
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andy Hawes
> > Sent: Friday, 14 September, 2007 09:22
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: hydro lock
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Future M14P pilot here -- wouldn't using a quick drain valve
> > collecting from cylinders 4, 5 and 6 be an alternative to
> pulling the
> > plugs? I'm not sure if the Yak folks have/use these drains or
> not and
> > I'm just trying to verify if pulling the plugs AND using a drain
> valve
> > are necessary -
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> > Andy
> > www.radialrocketman.com
> > Nashville, TN
> > andy717@comcast.net
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/13/07 7:49 PM, "HodgeJW@aol.com" wrote:
> >
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > I was flying friends Yak 50 today (Tim G). I parked it for about
> 15 min.
> > when I went
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
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 |
|
Roger that and thanks...
Lynn
DaBear <dabear@damned.org> wrote:
Lynn,
http://www.jimkimballenterprises.com/h_support_moose.html
Here is the url. The scavenge pump is 300 and shut off valve is 250.
Installation extra.
Dabear
Lynn Allen wrote:
> How much did the parts cost you??
>
> TIA,
>
> Lynn
>
> */DaBear /* wrote:
>
>
> So I'm going to weight in here. I've had the oil shut off valve (with
> starter cut-off) and oil scavenge pump for a while. I got it from
> Kimbal's in FL. I absolutely love it, with no (zero), nada, zip,
> reservations. I have to admit that I have tried to start it with the
> valve in the off position, it doesn't start. With it in place, I have
> had almost no oil in the system at all and if there is, there is not
> enough to hydro lock the engine.
>
> The only thing I would suggest is that you drain the engine with
> electric pump after shut down. Takes about 45-60 seconds. Then
> after a
> few min, drain the rest of the oil again. I'll usually do the second
> drain pump for 10-15 seconds after I've started to button up the
> airplane. This lets some of the oil drain down to the extraction
> point
> so you get all of it.
>
> Expensive, well, you decide. But I like not worrying about hydro
> lock.
> I like having a clean hanger floor. I like not leaving much of an oil
> slick at clinics. The only danger is that:
> 1. I could start it with it in the off position (not going to happen
> with the cut-off).
> 2. I could shut off the oil in flight (That should never happen)
>
> You make the call.
>
> DaBear
>
>
> Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E wrote:
> Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> >
> > Read Brian Lloyd's reply to this one for the best of advice, but
> let me
> > just add a few things:
> >
> > 1. I own a YAK-50 with intake drains, and due to a slightly
> leaky ball
> > check valve in my oil pump I get oil into the cylinders very
> quickly.
> > In a month of no flying I can actually lose up to 3 GALLONS of
> oil. If
> > I fly every two weeks or so, that never happens.
> >
> > 2. Each person has his or her own method for getting oil out of the
> > cylinders, Brian's method being the most safe obviously.
> >
> > 3. Probably the best method I saw of everyone listed was on Sergei
> > Boriak's SU-31 (before it crashed). Sergei was sick and tired of
> oil in
> > the cylinders and having to pull it through EVERY time.
> >
> > A. He spent a huge amount of $$$ and had new pistons put in with
> gapless
> > rings. Much more was done here than I will list, but the rings
> made a
> > big difference.
> >
> > B. The best trick was that he installed an OIL VALVE in the oil
> supply
> > line to the engine. Yes, there is an obvious danger in doing
> that. He
> > put in the typical safety steps with starter inhibitors, etc.
> etc. And
> > I am sure, a lot of people will say it is still too dangerous. So if
> > you feel that way, good for you. Keep yanking the plugs. On the flip
> > side, shutting off the oil supply pretty much puts an END to this
> > problem.
> >
> > C. The last step was to install an engine sump line going to an
> > electrical pump. After landing and shutting the engine down, you run
> > the pump and the oil from the sump is pumped back into the main oil
> > tank.
> >
> > You combine all three and you have a very dry engine, no oil on the
> > ground, and no need to pull it through, and no chance of hydrostatic
> > locks.
> >
> > I'm going to go with the main tank oil shut off valve, with push
> pull
> > control from the cockpit.
> >
> > Mark
> > N50YK
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> > Poehlmann
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:58
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: hydro lock
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have an intake drain set up on my Yak 55M, and it prevents MOST
> > hydro-lock conditions, however, it is still possible to have
> enough oil
> > in a cylinder which, when cold won't come out through the relatively
> > small diameter intake drain and you end up needing to pull the
> plugs. In
> > my case that has happened twice in the past 4 years, but it does
> > occasionally happen. Usually when I haven't flown the plane for more
> > than 2 weeks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another good reason to go fly...
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andy Hawes
> > Sent: Friday, 14 September, 2007 09:22
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: hydro lock
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Future M14P pilot here -- wouldn't using a quick drain valve
> > collecting from cylinders 4, 5 and 6 be an alternative to
> pulling the
> > plugs? I'm not sure if the Yak folks have/use these drains or
> not and
> > I'm just trying to verify if pulling the plugs AND using a drain
> valve
> > are necessary -
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> > Andy
> > www.radialrocketman.com
> > Nashville, TN
> > andy717@comcast.net
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/13/07 7:49 PM, "HodgeJW@aol.com" wrote:
> >
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > I was flying friends Yak 50 today (Tim G). I parked it for about
> 15 min.
> > when I went
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: G-meter for sale? |
Hi Tom
I don't have one....but what do you need one for? (If you don't
mind my asking)
Reb__________________________________________________________________
On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Tom Johnson wrote:
> Looking for a new or used G-meter for a Yak 52 (not the same as a
> Nanchang unit).
>
> Anybody have one sitting around (for sale) that works?
>
> Please reply directly: tomjohnson@cox.net
>
> Tj
>
> ---------------------------
> Thomas Johnson, Airpower Insurance, LLC
> 36 West Ocotillo Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
> Tel: 602-628-2701 or Toll Free: 866-475-9199
> E: tomjohnson@cox.net or Fax: 623-321-5843
> Free Quote: www.airpowerinsurance.com
>
> * Privacy Information
> ** NO insurance can be started or changed by email until confirmed
> in writing.
>
>
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: | TAS at Alt for Yak52 flight planning |
I'm taking the '52 cross country this week and was wondering what a good TAS is
for planning purposes. Assuming I pull the power back to 68%/5 or something similar,
what should I plan on for true airspeed at an ALT of 7,000 to 9,000?
Also, what is typically the most efficient cruising altitude for the 52? Obviously
there is less drag up higher, but you burn more fuel getting up there.
Thanks!
Mark
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137767#137767
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 |
|
Troops,
As you know 2008 at OSH is the 50 year celebration for the CJ-6. We want to
have 50 CJ there for the celebration. It was suggested that we figure out
some special formation for the fly overs. Some of the formations suggested
was "50" (11 aircraft) and a big "star" (22 aircraft). These are all very do
able. I mean if a bunch of P-51 prima donnas can fly a "51" formation in
their P-51, we can certainly do it also.
However, no matter how we do it or how many planes are in the formation, we
will need to all practice "line a breast". This is not normally flown by RPA
but would save us an huge amount of time at Kenosha if you all practice it
at some point in the mean time.
Usually the lead aircraft will be near the middle of the line. The sight
picture should be, the leading edge at the wing tip should be lined up with the
pilot. The space between wing tips will be 35 feet. You can help set you
distance by marking lines with a grease pencil on you canopy to use for
judging distance. Wingmen can step down some. Do not use the spar line on the
wing as that will put you behind of the beam line. The same with trying to use
the whole leading edge. Only the leading edge at the wing tip will give you
a true 90 degree angle abeam.
Other parts of the "50" or "star" are merely variations of echelon (flown
acute or sucked) and trail that will only require a different sight picture or
spacing.
However the "line a breast" is not easy - at least not for me.
So practice up. When you guys get together whether you're flying a 2-3-or 4
ship, brief it and try it. Be safe.
Remember a 50 year celebration only happens once. The EAA will be holding
their 2008 planning meeting soon. I need to have the numbers in order to have
them see things our way. Put it on next years calendar than go to
_http://www.flyredstar.org/T_Events.aspx_ (http://www.flyredstar.org/T_Events.aspx)
and sign up. It will not be like any other OSH.
Let me know how your doing. And as soon as I pass this damn kidney stone -
- - - >:-(
I'll be out flying.
(http://www.flyredstar.org/T_Events.aspx)
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
____________________________________
plash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169) .
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: M-14b Timing |
Hi Cliff;
Could you expand on the use of the factor of "/1.25" in calculating the
ignition advance angle?
What does that factor represent?
Thanks.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Coy" <cliff@gesoco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M-14b Timing
>
> The spark advance for the M14 series engines is 22-24 degrees BTDC.
>
> If you have M9-35M magnetos, there is a degree stamp on the mating face of
> the magneto body under the mag cap.
> This stamp is typically between 23 and 37 degrees.
>
> To compensate for the centrifugal advance of the mag use the following
> formula:
>
> 23 - (degree stamp / 1.25) = timing mark on the cylinder pointer in #4
> cylinder.
>
> If you're timing the engine via prop flange, then you will need to
> multiply the above result by the reduction gear ratio.
>
> On M14-P it's .658
> On M14-B it's .787
>
> So....with a "36" degree stamped magneto-
>
> 23- (36/1.25) = -5.8 or 6 degrees *after* top dead center as seen on the
> cylinder pointer.
>
> at the prop flange of an M14-P: 5.8 * .658 = 3.8 or 4 degrees ATDC
> at the prop flange of an M14-B: 5.8 * .787 = 4.5 degrees ATDC
>
> Cheers,
> Cliff
>
>
> Michael Bolton wrote:
>
>> Does anyone out there know the initial Mag timing for the M-14b? yes
>> that is a "B" I only have the manual for the P model. The "B" has mags
>> with centerfugal advance. Thanks for any help you guys might be able to
>> supply.
>> Michael J. Bolton, Vice President
>> Young Forest Products, Inc.
>> (O)803.438.4259
>> (C)803.427.0604
>>
>>*
>>
>>
>>*
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|