Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:15 AM - [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! (Matt Dralle)
1. 04:05 AM - M-14P Carb Enrichment (Craig Payne)
2. 05:33 AM - Re: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 05:34 AM - Person looking to buy a Huosai (david stroud)
4. 05:48 AM - Re: M14 P TBO (A. Dennis Savarese)
5. 06:56 AM - Re: M14 P TBO (fish@aviation-tech.com)
6. 07:39 AM - Fuel Flow (Walt Murphy)
7. 07:46 AM - Re: Fuel Flow (LawnDart)
8. 08:24 AM - 20,000 hrs M14 P TBO ? (kp)
9. 08:53 AM - Re: M14 P TBO (cjpilot710@aol.com)
10. 09:14 AM - M14P TBO (Richard Goode)
11. 09:35 AM - Re: Fuel Flow (Doug Sapp)
12. 11:14 AM - Re: M14 P TBO (Brian Lloyd)
13. 12:46 PM - Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes (Mozam)
14. 01:28 PM - Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes (LawnDart)
15. 01:39 PM - Fuel Flow (Walt Murphy)
16. 01:49 PM - Re: M14 P TBO (Walter Lannon)
17. 01:50 PM - Desicant Filter Wafers (Tryon)
18. 01:52 PM - Re: Fuel Flow (cjpilot710@aol.com)
19. 02:36 PM - Re: Fuel Flow (ronald wasson)
20. 02:49 PM - Re: 20,000 hrs M14 P TBO ? (A. Dennis Savarese)
21. 02:53 PM - Re: Fuel Flow (A. Dennis Savarese)
22. 03:22 PM - Re: Fuel Flow (Doug Sapp)
23. 03:44 PM - OSH 2008 CJ-6 50 Year Celerbration. (cjpilot710@aol.com)
24. 03:52 PM - Re: Fuel Flow (Frank Stelwagon)
25. 04:23 PM - Re: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes (Walter Lannon)
26. 07:23 PM - Re: Fuel Flow (Roger Bieberdorf)
27. 07:27 PM - Re: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes (Roger Kemp)
28. 08:48 PM - Re: Fuel Flow (netmaster15@juno.com)
29. 08:48 PM - CJ Mag #?? (KingCJ6@aol.com)
30. 10:14 PM - Re: CJ Mag #?? (Jim)
31. 10:22 PM - Re: M14 P TBO (Brian Lloyd)
Message 0
| 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: | [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
Its November 30th and that means a couple of things. Its my 44th birthday for
one, but I'm trying to forget about that... But, it also means that its that
last official day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser!
If you been drooling over one of the really sweet free gifts that are available
this year with a qualifying Contribution, then now is the time to jump on one!!
If you've been meaning to make a Contribution, but just keep putting it off, then
now is the time!
I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
to be known as a person that supported the Lists! Rather than the guy that,
er, ah, forgot (or whatever)... :-)
I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so far this
year in support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation
a float and I don't ever forget it. Hopefully everyone will feel the same.
The List Contribution page is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you all in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | M-14P Carb Enrichment |
Many folks have done the accelerator jet plug mod because of the sudden flooding
and subsequent surge of power when cramming on the throttle at low RPM. The
go-around is the classic example, or trying to hold the inside wing position in
a turn at slow speed.
My experience is that while that mod fixes the low end "problem" it also removes
the "enrichment" feature which is the engagement of the accelerator circuit
at WFO. Using excess fuel to cool the cylinder heads at full power is a common
engineering solution. Thus when the mod is in place, the engine loses a bit of
power at full throttle. This effect is better seen at low density altitudes.
A better solution (for me) was to move to a .9mm accelerator jet, which is the
smallest size I could find, This minimized the low RPM lag-surge but still allowed
the circuit to operate with the levers forward. Of course, the rest of the
carb settings need to be in the ballpark as well. Remember the Sukhoi A-B method?
Take A lever and push it full forward, then push the other lever up and
let it Be :>)
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
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: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes |
This chart is also available on my web site, www.yak-52.com, WITH FUEL
CONSUMPTION at the various power settings. Not in grams/horsepower/hour,
but in Gallons and Liters per hour.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes
>
> I am looking at "exploitation parameters with respect to the Running
> Conditions" as stated in the translated "IAK 52 School and Training
> Aircraft
> Flight Manual".
> Walt is absolutely correct for the Cruise 1 that Mozam referred to is for
> sea level operating parameters as best I can tell. Remember as you climb
> in
> altitude the atmospheric pressure decreases so to maintain the same
> manifold
> pressure and approximate HP, you have to open the advance (the inboard
> manifold pressure lever). Not to be too simple here.
>
> Running Condition.....Engine Speed (%)....Pressure Of Air @ engine intake
> (mmHg col.).....Fuel Spec. Consumption(g/hP.hr)
> Cruise 1................64 +/-1..........................735 +/-
> 15..........................215-235
> Cruise 2................59 +/-1..........................670 +/-
> 15..........................210-230
> Nominal 1...............70 +/-1..........................75-15
> (over)........................265-300
> Nominal 2...............82 +/-1..........................95-15
> (over)........................280-310
> T-O ...............99 +/-1..........................125-15
> (over).......................285-315
>
> Here is a table that gives the atmospheric pressure at various altitudes.
> The altitude is given in feet and the pressure is in inches of mercury.
>
> Altitude Pressure Altitude Pressure
>
> 0,000 29.92 20,000 13.75
> 1,000 28.86 25,000 11.10
> 2,000 27.82 30,000 8.886
>
> 3,000 26.82 35.000 7.041
> 4,000 25.84 40,000 5.538
> 5,000 24.89 45,000 4.355
>
> 10,000 20.58 50,000 3.425
> 15,000 16.88 60,000 2.118
> 18,000 * 14.94 100,000 0.329
>
> * This is almost exactly one-half the sea-level value.
> To convert in/Hg to psi, multiply by 0.491.
> @ 18,000 ft = 1/2 atm, @ 35,000 ft = 1/5 atm (atmosphere)
>
> Pressure Equivalents:
>
> 1 Atmosphere (as a unit of pressure) = 14.7 psi = 34 ft water column = 76
> cm/Hg
> = 29.92 in/Hg = 1.013 bar = 1,013 mbar
> 1 bar = 1,000 mbar = 14.5 psi = 29.53 in/Hg = 0.9869 atm
> 1 psi = 27.68 inches water column = 2.036 in/Hg = 6.859 kPa
> 1 kPa = 1,000 Pascals = 0.1458 psi
>
> Brain and Steve eloquently said it in their earlier post. Open the advance
> to maintain airflow and hp at a given altitude since the barometric
> pressure
> is decreasing as altitude increases.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walter Lannon
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:30 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes
>
>
> Hi Mark;
>
> I don't have the M14P manual to refer to but Steve has just posted the
> Cruise 1 setting of 64% and 735 mm/hg. This is a recommended limit.
> Granted that as altitude increases the throttle must be opened to maintain
> the desired MP. Since these engines have a low blower ratio compared to an
> "altitude" engine the full throttle altitude will be reached very quickly.
> In fact it is actually sea level but only with the power settings given in
> the manual.
> I absolutely agree with Steve's first post to use max. manifold pressure
> for
>
> a given RPM. He has revised it a bit to a given power setting rather than
> RPM but I think he means the same. The "power setting" is a combination of
> RPM and MP.
> I'm sure you would agree that at sea level a power setting of full
> throttle
> and 1450 (50%)RPM could be fairly described as over boosted.
>
> Cheers;
> Walt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:49 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes
>
>
>> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> Really. Well Walt, I am not so sure you are right about that, but I am
>> always ready to stand corrected and learn something that I did not know
>> before.
>>
>> My M-14 Manual says that you can operate this engine at full throttle
>> with the engine reduced to the very minimum RPM setting available at ANY
>> altitude. And ... I've read every available operating manual on this
>> engine that I can find.
>>
>> So what is the limit you are speaking of with the M-14P ???
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walter Lannon
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 18:19
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes
>>
>>
>> Mark Bitterlich wrote;
>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge Steve, there are no "boost limits" to this
>>
>>> engine at ANY RPM.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>> Mark;
>>
>> There are varying RPM/manifold pressure limits for every engine with a
>> variable pitch propellor.
>> Probably the easiest (but not recommended) way to find the first one is
>> to attempt a take-off with the prop control at low RPM.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Person looking to buy a Huosai |
There was a recent posting on the RAA list from this person
vaniretak@hotmail.com (Katerina was the name stated)
wanting to buy a Huosai engine and get it shipped to the UK.
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 under construction
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 |
|
One must remember though, it did not matter what the condition of the engine
was at 500 hours. It was removed regardless and as Doc said, IRAN'd.
Typical military type requirement.
There are many stories/rumors that have been passed around over the years
that tell about an M14 type engine running a power generator or ground power
unit (or something similar which runs 24-7). Anyway, as the story goes, the
engine ran non-stop for 20,000 or was it 30,000 hours with only oil added to
the engine as required. Then it was removed and thrown away and another
engine installed. BTW, The story came from a very reliable source. Is it
possible? I suppose so. Pretty far fetched though. Do I think the M14
will run for 20,000 hours. No, I personally don't. Do I think the M14 will
run for 1500 or 2000 hours. Certainly. If you really want to see a major
difference in hours/longevity of the M14P, look at an original engine log
book from a Yak 18T versus one from a Yak 52. It all depends on how it was
intended to be used.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>
> There is not a published TBO for the M-14 to my knowledge. It generally
> flown for 500 hours with pretty much doing minimal maintenance adding oil
> ect. It then underwent an IRAN at depot where what was out of tolerance
> was
> replaced.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B747crew
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:40 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>
>
> I'm wondering if there is an established TBO on the M14P or are there just
> general guidelines based on inspection/ compressions.
> In addition I"d like to get feedback from the group as to individual
> experience in terms of service before overhaul did became necessary.
> Thanks very much and thanks to the members of this forum for the
> exceptional information I find here on a regular basis.
>
> --------
> Jack Snodgrass
> 4305 Claridge Ct.
> Apex, NC 27539
> 808-371-2739
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149461#149461
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dennis,
I beleive the stories. When I was in A&P school, my engine
instructor was contracted to do maintenance on ground
generators (constant run type). He found the same thing when
the engines were shut down after 10-12 years of constant
running. He checked them and they were put back on line, to
run for anouther ? long.
The reason for this is in the thermal expansion. All the
wear occures during the starting cycle, before they can get
to operating temp. Once an engine has oil flow, and temp has
expanded the engine to its fullest. Very little wear will
occur.
Also ground based engines are optimised to run at one
Temp/RPM for max efficiency. Engine tollerances are set to
use this range.
If we wanted to run our engines in only one regime (and
constant) they would also probably last a long time also.
Fly Safe
John Fischer
Yak-52, N213YA
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> One must remember though, it did not matter what the
> condition of the engine was at 500 hours. It was removed
> regardless and as Doc said, IRAN'd. Typical military type
> requirement.
>
> There are many stories/rumors that have been passed around
> over the years that tell about an M14 type engine running
> a power generator or ground power unit (or something
> similar which runs 24-7). Anyway, as the story goes, the
> engine ran non-stop for 20,000 or was it 30,000 hours with
> only oil added to the engine as required. Then it was
> removed and thrown away and another engine installed.
> BTW, The story came from a very reliable source. Is it
> possible? I suppose so. Pretty far fetched though. Do I
> think the M14 will run for 20,000 hours. No, I
> personally don't. Do I think the M14 will run for 1500
> or 2000 hours. Certainly. If you really want to see a
> major difference in hours/longevity of the M14P, look at
> an original engine log book from a Yak 18T versus one
> from a Yak 52. It all depends on how it was intended to
> be used. Dennis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>
>
> <viperdoc@mindspring.com> >
> > There is not a published TBO for the M-14 to my
> > knowledge. It generally flown for 500 hours with pretty
> > much doing minimal maintenance adding oil ect. It then
> underwent an IRAN at depot where what was out of tolerance
> > was
> > replaced.
> > Doc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> > Of B747crew Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:40 PM
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
> >
> <B747crew2003@aol.com> >
> > I'm wondering if there is an established TBO on the M14P
> > or are there just general guidelines based on
> > inspection/ compressions. In addition I"d like to get
> > feedback from the group as to individual experience in
> > terms of service before overhaul did became necessary.
> Thanks very much and thanks to the members of this forum
> > for the exceptional information I find here on a regular
> basis. >
> > --------
> > Jack Snodgrass
> > 4305 Claridge Ct.
> > Apex, NC 27539
> > 808-371-2739
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149461#149461
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
>
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 |
|
Would like to hear from anyone that has installed a fuel flow indicator
on a CJ -6 on where they installed the transducer and how well it's
working in that location.
Also FYI Pacific Coast Avionics has the JPI fuel flow FP 450 on sale ( $
345 ) The following is from their ad:
* */Special price - $495.00/*
<http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php?cd=19331&ld=12&md=132&ud=1b3568389d955a724def63372bcf3e2e&url=http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/cart.asp%3Fadd=6501>
* Displays: Total Fuel Used, Fuel Remaining, Endurance in Hours and
Minutes, Fuel Required to Waypoint, Fuel Reserve at Waypoint,
Nautical MPG
* Works with Shadin or Hoskins System
* Continuous display of fuel burn
* */$150 Mail-In Rebate Through December 15, 2007/*
**/FREE/ 2-day shipping*
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I believe you will need the high flow transducer as well. This will inflate the
price considerably.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149639#149639
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: | 20,000 hrs M14 P TBO ? |
I think the story has some substance, albeit the decimal point may be in the
wrong place....
...HOWEVER they were used in the oilfields and run on Natural Gas
throughout their
life and were a much lower HP version of the M14 than we use.
kp.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> One must remember though, it did not matter what the condition of the
> engine was at 500 hours. It was removed regardless and as Doc said,
> IRAN'd. Typical military type requirement.
>
> There are many stories/rumors that have been passed around over the years
> that tell about an M14 type engine running a power generator or ground
> power unit (or something similar which runs 24-7). Anyway, as the story
> goes, the engine ran non-stop for 20,000 or was it 30,000 hours with only
> oil added to the engine as required. Then it was removed and thrown away
> and another engine installed. BTW, The story came from a very reliable
> source. Is it possible? I suppose so. Pretty far fetched though. Do I
> think the M14 will run for 20,000 hours. No, I personally don't. Do I
> think the M14 will run for 1500 or 2000 hours. Certainly. If you really
> want to see a major difference in hours/longevity of the M14P, look at an
> original engine log book from a Yak 18T versus one from a Yak 52. It all
> depends on how it was intended to be used.
> Dennis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>
>
>>
>> There is not a published TBO for the M-14 to my knowledge. It generally
>> flown for 500 hours with pretty much doing minimal maintenance adding oil
>> ect. It then underwent an IRAN at depot where what was out of tolerance
>> was
>> replaced.
>> Doc
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B747crew
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:40 PM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>>
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is an established TBO on the M14P or are there
>> just
>> general guidelines based on inspection/ compressions.
>> In addition I"d like to get feedback from the group as to individual
>> experience in terms of service before overhaul did became necessary.
>> Thanks very much and thanks to the members of this forum for the
>> exceptional information I find here on a regular basis.
>>
>> --------
>> Jack Snodgrass
>> 4305 Claridge Ct.
>> Apex, NC 27539
>> 808-371-2739
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149461#149461
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I got to echo Dennis.
I am going on my experience only. The M-14p in my CJ has 1350+ hours since
new, all put on by me. I have a 10 micron oil filter and have used only 50
or 60 weight detergent oil. I've never used multi grade except when the other
stuff was not available. At 430 hours I had to do a ring job because the
factory had installed a scraper ring where the oil ring should have been. So
the present rings have over 900 hours on them. At present the compressions
are even and down to the low 70s. I can hear a little air out the breather.
With the except of the ring failure at 430 hours, I've never seen any metal in
the filter which I've changed out every 30 to 40 hours along with the oil.
I still get 34" mp and 2850 rpm (I set the prop governor for that and
perhaps to conservative) for takeoffs here at sea level. For acro I need only
32"
and 2300 rpm for what I do. At cruise I use 2000 rpm and 28" mp until I
reach an altitude where the throttle is wide open. I use that power setting for
climb also.
Like Craig, I used the smallest accelerator jet I had in the parts kit. No
problems there.
Every engine is a product of how it is used. These engine are great. They
can take a lot of abuse. Just like the big engines, if you "baby" them, they
last a lot longer. On the 1830s we always ALWAY stay "over square". We
never let the prop drive the engine. The thrust bearings and such were designed
for the power to drive prop. For instance we make our approach in the B-24
using our cruise rpm, 2,000, and never let the mp drop below 21". If we
fuck-up and are high, the B-24 does beautiful slip or we will pull the rpm back
to 1800 and the mp to 20" If we have to go around throttles are advanced to
35" and props than move to 2300. During the war crews were taught to set the
rpm at 2300 on the downwind leg and use any throttle setting down to idle
for the approach. But engine were cheap and plentiful.
The guts of the M-14 are a little beefier compared to the big 1820 and 1830s
but the principles are the same. I try to keep my power over square as much
as possible.
The best thing to add to any engine particularly a radial, is a preoiler.
The greatest wear happens during starting. I read somewhere it accounts for
over 70%. We have used it on the B-24 for a number of years and have seen
much better engine wear on the B-17 in the last couple of years since we
starting using it on the 1820 which are beefier than 1830. I have a preoiler
on my
M-14 and I believe it, the 10 micron filter, and the way I operate it, is the
reason for its longevity. So far. :>)
BTW#2 I watch my fuel flow drop almost 2 g/h by dropping my rpm way back.
Didn't old Chuck Lindberge show us how it was done with the troops in WW2?
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
In a message dated 11/30/2007 8:49:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dsavarese@elmore.rr.com writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
<dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
One must remember though, it did not matter what the condition of the engine
was at 500 hours. It was removed regardless and as Doc said, IRAN'd.
Typical military type requirement.
There are many stories/rumors that have been passed around over the years
that tell about an M14 type engine running a power generator or ground power
unit (or something similar which runs 24-7). Anyway, as the story goes, the
engine ran non-stop for 20,000 or was it 30,000 hours with only oil added to
the engine as required. Then it was removed and thrown away and another
engine installed. BTW, The story came from a very reliable source. Is it
possible? I suppose so. Pretty far fetched though. Do I think the M14
will run for 20,000 hours. No, I personally don't. Do I think the M14 will
run for 1500 or 2000 hours. Certainly. If you really want to see a major
difference in hours/longevity of the M14P, look at an original engine log
book from a Yak 18T versus one from a Yak 52. It all depends on how it was
intended to be used.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> There is not a published TBO for the M-14 to my knowledge. It generally
> flown for 500 hours with pretty much doing minimal maintenance adding oil
> ect. It then underwent an IRAN at depot where what was out of tolerance
> was
> replaced.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B747crew
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:40 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>
>
> I'm wondering if there is an established TBO on the M14P or are there just
> general guidelines based on inspection/ compressions.
> In addition I"d like to get feedback from the group as to individual
> experience in terms of service before overhaul did became necessary.
> Thanks very much and thanks to the members of this forum for the
> exceptional information I find here on a regular basis.
>
> --------
> Jack Snodgrass
> 4305 Claridge Ct.
> Apex, NC 27539
> 808-371-2739
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149461#149461
>
>
>
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
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 |
|
M14P TBO is well documented.
First run is to 750 hours, and then a further three runs of 500 hours to
make a total of 2250, before the entire engine is scrapped.
Obviously these were Soviet times and extremely conservative. There is
no doubt with Western oil and gentler use than that in the Russian
Aerobatic Team, lives would be far longer.
In passing note that the first life if used in a single-seat aerobatic
aircraft is only 500 hours, and not 750.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.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 |
|
Walt,
I ran a Hoskins FT101 in my CJ and also later in my Yak 18 / CJ5 and it
worked great. This ad is a little misleading because this is not a
complete system they are offering. You will need to also buy a Flow
Scan or some such "fail safe" transducer to get the signal to the JPI
unit. FYI the transducer used in most marine fuel flow units are
exactly the same as the aircraft type. Both are "fail safe". I have
sold a few of the marine units over the years and they work great also
and the cost is about 400.00 complete, head and transducer.
Sorry for the long winded oratory about the water filter, I guess I mis
understood. There is a "sock" type filter out there, but it robs you of
one inch of MP. Do you have a 10 micron oil filter installed? If not
you should it will (IMHO) gain you more benefit unless you operate in a
extremely dirty environment.
Best,
Doug
Walt Murphy wrote:
> Would like to hear from anyone that has installed a fuel flow
> indicator on a CJ -6 on where they installed the transducer and how
> well it's working in that location.
>
> Also FYI Pacific Coast Avionics has the JPI fuel flow FP 450 on sale (
> $ 345 ) The following is from their ad:
>
> * */Special price - $495.00/*
> <http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php?cd=19331&ld=12&md=132&ud=1b3568389d955a724def63372bcf3e2e&url=http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/cart.asp%3Fadd=6501>
>
> * Displays: Total Fuel Used, Fuel Remaining, Endurance in Hours
> and Minutes, Fuel Required to Waypoint, Fuel Reserve at
> Waypoint, Nautical MPG
> * Works with Shadin or Hoskins System
> * Continuous display of fuel burn
> * */$150 Mail-In Rebate Through December 15, 2007/*
>
> **/FREE/ 2-day shipping*
>
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
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 |
|
On Nov 30, 2007, at 5:47 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> Do I think the M14 will run for 20,000 hours. No, I personally
> don't. Do I think the M14 will run for 1500 or 2000 hours.
> Certainly. If you really want to see a major difference in hours/
> longevity of the M14P, look at an original engine log book from a
> Yak 18T versus one from a Yak 52. It all depends on how it was
> intended to be used.
Dennis, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you want a 2000 hour life
from an M14P, run it at reduced power. Pull the RPM (%) back and run
at lower power settings. You will get less wear from the engine.
Also, fly it straight-and-level at a constant power setting with all
the temps at their optimum points. Don't do any aerobatics.
If you work the engine hard and do lots of acro, expect the engine to
have a shorter life, maybe even 500 hours.
Remember, a military org wants high dispatch reliability and is
willing to pay for it, especially if they don't have to "pay" for it.
Pulling the engine at 500 hours prophylactically pretty much ensures
that one gets the engine before it has time to develop any problems
in the field. Fix everything and put it back. It will again run a
long time with minimal maintenance. We don't have that luxury here so
we need to keep closer tabs on the internal operations of the engine.
Of course, one could keep two engines around and swap them every 500
hours. Pull the NIS engine apart and check everything. Put it back
together with new bearings, rings, and gaskets. Something to think
about.
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brianl AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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: | Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes |
Mozam wrote:
>
> I will experiment further and report my findings. Any excuse to go fly is a
good one!! :D
>
Well, here's what I learned today. I *hope* the Excel sheet I attached comes thru.
Some of this data was very surprising to me. However, I think it does prove there
is no "full throttle enrichment" on the M14P.
I'm very interested in your opinions of cruise power settings based on this data.
-Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149675#149675
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/yak_fuel_flow_analysis_150.xls
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: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes |
All of this throttle "to the stops" talk has me wondering... My throttle stops
are adjustable. I am not sure we can say "top the stops" means the same on all
M14P installations.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149680#149680
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 |
|
Just so that you know ...the JPI unit on sale at Pacific is complete. I
know because I bought one and it came with the transducer, harness and
the indicator. I also spoke with JPI and they told me that this one is
good to over 45 GPH so it should be fine for the CJ with the stock motor.
I would like to know where people have mounted the transducer ( sender )
normally they like to be horizontal in a straight run of pipe to work
best ... where have you guy's mounted yours?
Thanks,
Walt
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 |
|
As mentioned in a previous post the Ivchenko engines (of which the M14 is a
derivative) have been used in the oil industry as pump engines running on
natural gas. In this instance it is quite possible they could run for 20,000
hrs.
In years past the RR Merlin was utilized for this function in Canada.
Running at nowhere near maximum power at constant RPM 24 Hrs per day on
absolutely clean burning fuel they ran for years. Maybe 100,000 hrs TBO.
Long since replaced by turbines which probably run forever.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-1927@lloyd.com>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 5:47 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>
>> Do I think the M14 will run for 20,000 hours. No, I personally don't.
>> Do I think the M14 will run for 1500 or 2000 hours. Certainly. If you
>> really want to see a major difference in hours/ longevity of the M14P,
>> look at an original engine log book from a Yak 18T versus one from a Yak
>> 52. It all depends on how it was intended to be used.
>
> Dennis, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you want a 2000 hour life
> from an M14P, run it at reduced power. Pull the RPM (%) back and run at
> lower power settings. You will get less wear from the engine. Also, fly
> it straight-and-level at a constant power setting with all the temps at
> their optimum points. Don't do any aerobatics.
>
> If you work the engine hard and do lots of acro, expect the engine to
> have a shorter life, maybe even 500 hours.
>
> Remember, a military org wants high dispatch reliability and is willing
> to pay for it, especially if they don't have to "pay" for it. Pulling the
> engine at 500 hours prophylactically pretty much ensures that one gets
> the engine before it has time to develop any problems in the field. Fix
> everything and put it back. It will again run a long time with minimal
> maintenance. We don't have that luxury here so we need to keep closer
> tabs on the internal operations of the engine.
>
> Of course, one could keep two engines around and swap them every 500
> hours. Pull the NIS engine apart and check everything. Put it back
> together with new bearings, rings, and gaskets. Something to think about.
>
>
> Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
> brianl AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
>
>
>
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: | Desicant Filter Wafers |
If your tired of the Aluminum End plates deteriorating inside your dessicant
filter all the time.
I have some of the end Wafers (round plates with holes in them) that fit
the inlet / oulets sides of the dessicant filters. These are made of
STAINLESS STEEL and should end this problem, expecially if you now have the
stainless assembly you will have electrolysis between the stainless and
aluminum..
I had to get 10ea made at the machine shop, but I only needed 2 of them..
So I have 4pr. to sell.
I am asking $20 a pair to recoupe my expense of having them made .. (no
profit here) I had to pay $100 to get the 10 of them.. I'll pay the
postage and drop them in an envelope to anyone interested.
But even at $20 it was well worth not having to continue to make them over
every other time I cleaned the dessicant..
If anyone is interrested email me or call 770-712-5909
Thanks, Rutledge Wilson
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 |
|
I mounted mine just up stream of the inlet to the carburetor.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
In a message dated 11/30/2007 4:41:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
waltmurphy@charter.net writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Murphy <waltmurphy@charter.net>
Just so that you know ...the JPI unit on sale at Pacific is complete. I
know because I bought one and it came with the transducer, harness and
the indicator. I also spoke with JPI and they told me that this one is
good to over 45 GPH so it should be fine for the CJ with the stock motor.
I would like to know where people have mounted the transducer ( sender )
normally they like to be horizontal in a straight run of pipe to work
best ... where have you guy's mounted yours?
Thanks,
Walt
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
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 |
|
How hard is it to get the fitting to mount standard threads to metric
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 20,000 hrs M14 P TBO ? |
With all due respect Kevin, the decimal point is not in the wrong place and
the language the individual to the story in was English. Regardless of
whether it is 100% true or not, the story stands as told.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "kp" <pilko2@btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:52 AM
Subject: Yak-List: 20,000 hrs M14 P TBO ?
>
> I think the story has some substance, albeit the decimal point may be in
> the wrong place....
>
> ...HOWEVER they were used in the oilfields and run on Natural Gas
> throughout their
> life and were a much lower HP version of the M14 than we use.
>
> kp.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>
>
>> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>>
>> One must remember though, it did not matter what the condition of the
>> engine was at 500 hours. It was removed regardless and as Doc said,
>> IRAN'd. Typical military type requirement.
>>
>> There are many stories/rumors that have been passed around over the years
>> that tell about an M14 type engine running a power generator or ground
>> power unit (or something similar which runs 24-7). Anyway, as the story
>> goes, the engine ran non-stop for 20,000 or was it 30,000 hours with only
>> oil added to the engine as required. Then it was removed and thrown away
>> and another engine installed. BTW, The story came from a very reliable
>> source. Is it possible? I suppose so. Pretty far fetched though. Do I
>> think the M14 will run for 20,000 hours. No, I personally don't. Do I
>> think the M14 will run for 1500 or 2000 hours. Certainly. If you really
>> want to see a major difference in hours/longevity of the M14P, look at an
>> original engine log book from a Yak 18T versus one from a Yak 52. It all
>> depends on how it was intended to be used.
>> Dennis
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:22 PM
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is not a published TBO for the M-14 to my knowledge. It generally
>>> flown for 500 hours with pretty much doing minimal maintenance adding
>>> oil
>>> ect. It then underwent an IRAN at depot where what was out of tolerance
>>> was
>>> replaced.
>>> Doc
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B747crew
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:40 PM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Yak-List: M14 P TBO
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if there is an established TBO on the M14P or are there
>>> just
>>> general guidelines based on inspection/ compressions.
>>> In addition I"d like to get feedback from the group as to individual
>>> experience in terms of service before overhaul did became necessary.
>>> Thanks very much and thanks to the members of this forum for the
>>> exceptional information I find here on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Jack Snodgrass
>>> 4305 Claridge Ct.
>>> Apex, NC 27539
>>> 808-371-2739
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149461#149461
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
The ad for the JPI 450 includes a Floscan 201 transducer, which is not
suitable for our high-end fuel flows. See Gulf Coast Avionics' web
site. You will need a Floscan #231 and I have asked them to swap the
201 for a 231. I also bought a Floscan 231 direct from the Floscan web
site for $110.00. With shipping and handling, $127.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Sapp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Fuel Flow
Walt,
I ran a Hoskins FT101 in my CJ and also later in my Yak 18 / CJ5 and
it worked great. This ad is a little misleading because this is not a
complete system they are offering. You will need to also buy a Flow
Scan or some such "fail safe" transducer to get the signal to the JPI
unit. FYI the transducer used in most marine fuel flow units are
exactly the same as the aircraft type. Both are "fail safe". I have
sold a few of the marine units over the years and they work great also
and the cost is about 400.00 complete, head and transducer.
Sorry for the long winded oratory about the water filter, I guess I
mis understood. There is a "sock" type filter out there, but it robs
you of one inch of MP. Do you have a 10 micron oil filter installed?
If not you should it will (IMHO) gain you more benefit unless you
operate in a extremely dirty environment.
Best,
Doug
Walt Murphy wrote:
Would like to hear from anyone that has installed a fuel flow
indicator on a CJ -6 on where they installed the transducer and how well
it's working in that location.
Also FYI Pacific Coast Avionics has the JPI fuel flow FP 450 on sale
( $ 345 ) The following is from their ad:
a.. Special price - $495.00
b.. Displays: Total Fuel Used, Fuel Remaining, Endurance in Hours
and Minutes, Fuel Required to Waypoint, Fuel Reserve at Waypoint,
Nautical MPG
c.. Works with Shadin or Hoskins System
d.. Continuous display of fuel burn
e.. $150 Mail-In Rebate Through December 15, 2007
*FREE 2-day shipping
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 |
|
Walt and Dennis,
I stand corrected the PCA system is complete and is a very good buy if
supplied with the proper transducer.
Also, I sent my Hoskins Fuel flow to Scandia Aerospace to have it
checked and repaired after it went TU. Scandia found a dead transducer
and hooked me over $350.00 for a new one. A month later Joe Cook was
telling me about a marine fuel flow that he had just put in his CJ and I
remarked that it might be low cost ($400.00) but I doubted the
transducer was a aircraft quality "fail safe" unit. He called me back
after checking and not only was it made by Flow Scan it was the EXACT
same part number as the Flow Scan transducer that Scandia had just sold
me. The only difference was that the marine unit did not have "TSO"
after the part number. Live and learn.
Always yakin,
Doug
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> The ad for the JPI 450 includes a Floscan 201 transducer, which is not
> suitable for our high-end fuel flows. See Gulf Coast Avionics' web
> site. You will need a Floscan #231 and I have asked them to swap the
> 201 for a 231. I also bought a Floscan 231 direct from the Floscan
> web site for $110.00. With shipping and handling, $127.
> Dennis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Doug Sapp <mailto:rvfltd@televar.com>
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com <mailto:yak-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 10:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Fuel Flow
>
> Walt,
> I ran a Hoskins FT101 in my CJ and also later in my Yak 18 / CJ5
> and it worked great. This ad is a little misleading because this
> is not a complete system they are offering. You will need to also
> buy a Flow Scan or some such "fail safe" transducer to get the
> signal to the JPI unit. FYI the transducer used in most marine
> fuel flow units are exactly the same as the aircraft type. Both
> are "fail safe". I have sold a few of the marine units over the
> years and they work great also and the cost is about 400.00
> complete, head and transducer.
>
> Sorry for the long winded oratory about the water filter, I guess
> I mis understood. There is a "sock" type filter out there, but it
> robs you of one inch of MP. Do you have a 10 micron oil filter
> installed? If not you should it will (IMHO) gain you more benefit
> unless you operate in a extremely dirty environment.
>
> Best,
> Doug
>
> Walt Murphy wrote:
>
>> Would like to hear from anyone that has installed a fuel flow
>> indicator on a CJ -6 on where they installed the transducer and
>> how well it's working in that location.
>>
>> Also FYI Pacific Coast Avionics has the JPI fuel flow FP 450 on
>> sale ( $ 345 ) The following is from their ad:
>>
>> * */Special price - $495.00/*
>> <http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php?cd=19331&ld=12&md=132&ud=1b3568389d955a724def63372bcf3e2e&url=http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/cart.asp%3Fadd=6501>
>>
>> * Displays: Total Fuel Used, Fuel Remaining, Endurance in
>> Hours and Minutes, Fuel Required to Waypoint, Fuel Reserve
>> at Waypoint, Nautical MPG
>> * Works with Shadin or Hoskins System
>> * Continuous display of fuel burn
>> * */$150 Mail-In Rebate Through December 15, 2007/*
>>
>> **/FREE/ 2-day shipping*
>>
>>
>>*
>>
>>
>>*
>>
>
>*
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>*
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
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: | OSH 2008 CJ-6 50 Year Celerbration. |
Troops,
It is fast approaching (believe it or not) the time to start making some
plans for Oshkosh 2008. This December we (RPA) will be required to put dow
n a
deposit on rooms at the University of Wisconsin for those who will be stayi
ng
in the dorms there. The university will be setting aside all our rooms
together in the same building and same floor.
The rooms will cost $50.00 per night. These are standard 2 person college
dorms. No private baths (their just down the hall) and no air-conditioning
.
You will get 2 sheets, 1 pillow case, 1 towel, 1 wash cloth , and 1 blanket
.
(Just like the military. Remember that?)
For those who have never =98done the dorms=98, there is a very n
ice inexpensive
cafeteria open for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The food is excellent
really. There is public transport (bus) going to straight the EAA main gat
e from
0630 until 2300 ($5./roundtrip or $20 for the week=98s pass). There
are a
couple of nice restaurants with-in walking distance.
A lot of EAAers really love the dorms.
If you have already signed up, that=99s good BUT you will still need t
o go
back to the RPA web site (_http://www.flyredstar.org/_
(http://www.flyredstar.org/) ) to the Fly-in section and look for :
OSH08 Part 2 Dorm Lodging Only.
There you will re-reregister just for the dorm rooms. Because of the way
the programming of the web site is, we have to do it this way.
If you haven=99t signed up yet (Shame on You!) you will need to do so
twice.
Once in the normal spot and again in the Dorm lodging section.
So get to it guys. Time is a wasting.
Jim =9CPappy=9D Goolsby
_Cjpilot710@aol.com_ (mailto:Cjpilot710@aol.com)
PS. So far 41 CJ-6s have signed up. What's holding you up?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 24
| 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 |
|
If I remember right the Flowscan transducers are manufactured in
Washington or Oregon. I used them on an engine dyno when we were racing
and they were reliable but they are sensitive to the plumbing before and
after the transducer. They like a straight run before and after the
sensor to cut down on turbulence. We used them for alcohol and gas with
no problems.
Frank
CJ6-A
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Sapp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Fuel Flow
Walt and Dennis,
I stand corrected the PCA system is complete and is a very good buy if
supplied with the proper transducer.
Also, I sent my Hoskins Fuel flow to Scandia Aerospace to have it
checked and repaired after it went TU. Scandia found a dead transducer
and hooked me over $350.00 for a new one. A month later Joe Cook was
telling me about a marine fuel flow that he had just put in his CJ and I
remarked that it might be low cost ($400.00) but I doubted the
transducer was a aircraft quality "fail safe" unit. He called me back
after checking and not only was it made by Flow Scan it was the EXACT
same part number as the Flow Scan transducer that Scandia had just sold
me. The only difference was that the marine unit did not have "TSO"
after the part number. Live and learn.
Always yakin,
Doug
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
The ad for the JPI 450 includes a Floscan 201 transducer, which is
not suitable for our high-end fuel flows. See Gulf Coast Avionics' web
site. You will need a Floscan #231 and I have asked them to swap the
201 for a 231. I also bought a Floscan 231 direct from the Floscan web
site for $110.00. With shipping and handling, $127.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Sapp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Fuel Flow
Walt,
I ran a Hoskins FT101 in my CJ and also later in my Yak 18 / CJ5
and it worked great. This ad is a little misleading because this is not
a complete system they are offering. You will need to also buy a Flow
Scan or some such "fail safe" transducer to get the signal to the JPI
unit. FYI the transducer used in most marine fuel flow units are
exactly the same as the aircraft type. Both are "fail safe". I have
sold a few of the marine units over the years and they work great also
and the cost is about 400.00 complete, head and transducer.
Sorry for the long winded oratory about the water filter, I guess
I mis understood. There is a "sock" type filter out there, but it robs
you of one inch of MP. Do you have a 10 micron oil filter installed?
If not you should it will (IMHO) gain you more benefit unless you
operate in a extremely dirty environment.
Best,
Doug
Walt Murphy wrote:
Would like to hear from anyone that has installed a fuel flow
indicator on a CJ -6 on where they installed the transducer and how well
it's working in that location.
Also FYI Pacific Coast Avionics has the JPI fuel flow FP 450 on
sale ( $ 345 ) The following is from their ad:
a.. Special price - $495.00
b.. Displays: Total Fuel Used, Fuel Remaining, Endurance in
Hours and Minutes, Fuel Required to Waypoint, Fuel Reserve at Waypoint,
Nautical MPG
c.. Works with Shadin or Hoskins System
d.. Continuous display of fuel burn
e.. $150 Mail-In Rebate Through December 15, 2007
*FREE 2-day shipping
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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 25
| 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: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes |
Mark;
I guess I am not explaining this properly. There are boost limits with all
engines, including the M14. They are a function of propellor loading.
I did NOT say that the given cruise settings were the only ones allowed for
cruise. If you wish to burn the gas you may cruise at T/O for 5 mins. or at
any setting between T/O and Cruise 1 ( or even lower if you wish) but you
should ensure that you balance the RPM and MP accordingly.
I doubt you would even consider low altitude cruise at full throttle with
the prop control at minimum RPM or attempt a take-off in the same condition
both of which you have stated are perfectly acceptable for the M14 and I
quote "-------there are no " boost limits" to this engine at ANY RPM"
I refer you to the M14P Maintenance Manual, 072.00.00, Pg. 14, Para. 2.2.2,
bottom of page which states "----- do not set the airscrew to higher pitch
before decreasing boost, otherwise the crank mechanism of the engine may be
heavily overloaded. To increase engine rating, first increase its speed to
the desired one (relieve the airscrew) and then increase boosting." and rest
my case.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
>
>>I don't have the M14P manual to refer to but Steve has just posted the
> Cruise 1 setting of 64% and 735 mm/hg. This is a recommended limit.
>
> Walt, I am sorry... No it is not a recommended limit. It is performance
> setting where you should get documented results. It is like a Vx or Vy
> speed. You climb at those speeds at a given weight, and you should
> obtain a known end. These are not limits. Because the manual documents
> a Cruise 1 setting and a Cruise 2 setting, that these are the only two
> places that you are allowed to cruise? No Sir. My manual clearly
> states that full throttle is available at ANY RPM SETTING. When I get
> home tonight, I will pull it out and find it and quote it.
>
>>Granted that as altitude increases the throttle must be opened to
> maintain the desired MP. Since these engines have a low blower ratio
> compared to an "altitude" engine the full throttle altitude will be
> reached very quickly.
> In fact it is actually sea level but only with the power settings given
> in the manual.
> I absolutely agree with Steve's first post to use max. manifold pressure
> for a given RPM. He has revised it a bit to a given power setting rather
> than RPM but I think he means the same. The "power setting" is a
> combination of RPM and MP.
> I'm sure you would agree that at sea level a power setting of full
> throttle and 1450 (50%)RPM could be fairly described as over boosted.
>
> I understand that we both understand how manifold pressure works and are
> not disagreeing over nonsense. But actually no Walt I would not
> consider 55 or 60% RPM (mine simply will not go that low at full
> throttle) with full throttle to be "over-boosted". I honestly do not
> usually run it all the way down to 60% with full throttle, but I do it
> regularly at 70%. I have run for an hour at 1000 feet with 70% RPM and
> full throttle. Sounds good, runs good.
>
> Consider if you will that some of the big blowers on some of the heavy
> iron birds out there are/were capable of well over 50 inches of "boost".
> Some of them would go so high that water injection was used. Now we
> have an engine turning 2950 RPM developing a few thousand horsepower in
> this condition. This was not considered "over-boosted".
>
> Then we have an engine which has a max horsepower of 360 that develops
> around 34 or so inches of manifold pressure at sea level (plus or minus
> 2 inches or so), and we apply that to an engine turning say 1500 or so
> RPM, and this is suddenly over-boosted simply because it used the same
> manifold pressure at a higher RPM?
>
> Do I feel that there are no limits? Well, certainly there are with some
> motors, but apparently not with the M-14P because the books that I have
> read specifically says otherwise.
>
> This is a much better discussion than most lately by the way... It has
> serious bearing on how we all fly.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:49 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes
>
>
> Point,
>> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> Really. Well Walt, I am not so sure you are right about that, but I
> am
>> always ready to stand corrected and learn something that I did not
> know
>> before.
>>
>> My M-14 Manual says that you can operate this engine at full throttle
>> with the engine reduced to the very minimum RPM setting available at
> ANY
>> altitude. And ... I've read every available operating manual on this
>> engine that I can find.
>>
>> So what is the limit you are speaking of with the M-14P ???
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walter
> Lannon
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 18:19
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising
> altitudes
>>
>>
>> Mark Bitterlich wrote;
>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge Steve, there are no "boost limits" to
> this
>>
>>> engine at ANY RPM.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>> Mark;
>>
>> There are varying RPM/manifold pressure limits for every engine with a
>> variable pitch propellor.
>> Probably the easiest (but not recommended) way to find the first one
> is
>> to attempt a take-off with the prop control at low RPM.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 26
| 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 |
|
Walt;
About three years ago when there was the price war between JPI and ECI; I bough
a JPI for my Cessna and was quite satisfiied. Because the CJ-6 is "fuel capacity
challenged" I bought one (at a higher price a few months later) and installed
it in N-96YK. Since then, both have operated flawlessly.......register
fuel between fillups close to + or - 1 gallon on 35 to 70 gallon fillups. (Aircraft
dependent).
The Cessna installation (C-182) allowed for more close compliance with the horizontal/straight
line intallation as suggested by JPI; the Nanchange installation
was not in compliance with the JPI requirements, but seems to not matter.
I am on a job away from the Nanchang for 3 weeks; but can send pics of the Nanchang
installation if you are interested. Can't remember the specifics at this
time of the installation; but DO know that I trust the fuel flow indicatior
MUCH more than I trust the fuel gauges.
RB
Walt Murphy <waltmurphy@charter.net> wrote:
Just so that you know ...the JPI unit on sale at Pacific is complete. I
know because I bought one and it came with the transducer, harness and
the indicator. I also spoke with JPI and they told me that this one is
good to over 45 GPH so it should be fine for the CJ with the stock motor.
I would like to know where people have mounted the transducer ( sender )
normally they like to be horizontal in a straight run of pipe to work
best ... where have you guy's mounted yours?
Thanks,
Walt
---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
Message 27
| 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: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes |
Mozam,
Appears that "over square" is not the way to make gas at any altitude from
your data. It appears that pulling the "advance" back to even or slightly
under square.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mozam
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:45 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Throttle setting at higher cruising altitudes
Mozam wrote:
>
> I will experiment further and report my findings. Any excuse to go fly is
a good one!! :D
>
Well, here's what I learned today. I *hope* the Excel sheet I attached
comes thru.
Some of this data was very surprising to me. However, I think it does prove
there is no "full throttle enrichment" on the M14P.
I'm very interested in your opinions of cruise power settings based on this
data.
-Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149675#149675
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/yak_fuel_flow_analysis_150.xls
Message 28
| 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, I've got a JPI I'm about to put into a YAK 50 and would apprec
iate having pictures of your installation. Right off I have a question r
e the type of hose fittings you have used . Did you go with U.S. sized f
ittings and what brand of fuel hose is installed in the CJ? Is it Chines
e metric or US? Please feel free to include any suggestions you think he
lpful. Thanks in advance.
Cliff Umscheid
-- Roger Bieberdorf <rogerbyak@yahoo.com> wrote:
Walt;About three years ago when there was the price war between JPI and
ECI; I bough a JPI for my Cessna and was quite satisfiied. Because the
CJ-6 is "fuel capacity challenged" I bought one (at a higher price a few
months later) and installed it in N-96YK. Since then, both have operate
d flawlessly.......register fuel between fillups close to + or - 1 gallo
n on 35 to 70 gallon fillups. (Aircraft dependent). The Cessna installa
tion (C-182) allowed for more close compliance with the horizontal/strai
ght line intallation as suggested by JPI; the Nanchange installation was
not in compliance with the JPI requirements, but seems to not matter.
I am on a job away from the Nanchang for 3 weeks; but can send pics of t
he Nanchang installation if you are interested. Can't remember the spec
ifics at this time of the installation; but DO know that I trust the fue
l flow indicatior MUCH more than I trust the fuel gauges. Be a better pe
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
======
_____________________________________________________________
Click for your daily horoscope, learn about money, love & family.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3ly8lXkBRDVnXPilBy7QaW
wqxSKB5KcIWcLZCdHQ98Enlb7t/
Message 29
| 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 |
|
We have a dead #2 mag and no manual handy. To make sure we work on the
correct mag, # 2 is on the right side as viewed from the cockpit, correct?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 30
| 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 |
|
Yes, sitting in the Plane it's the right side.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: KingCJ6@aol.com
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:46 PM
Subject: Yak-List: CJ Mag #??
We have a dead #2 mag and no manual handy. To make sure we work on
the correct mag, # 2 is on the right side as viewed from the cockpit,
correct?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top
money wasters of 2007.
Message 31
| 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 |
|
On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Walter Lannon wrote:
>
> As mentioned in a previous post the Ivchenko engines (of which the
> M14 is a derivative) have been used in the oil industry as pump
> engines running on natural gas. In this instance it is quite
> possible they could run for 20,000 hrs.
> In years past the RR Merlin was utilized for this function in
> Canada. Running at nowhere near maximum power at constant RPM 24
> Hrs per day on absolutely clean burning fuel they ran for years.
> Maybe 100,000 hrs TBO.
I know that Allisons were used to do that but I have never heard of a
Merlin pressed into that service. The Merlin did not have the
strongest of valve trains and it also had that two-stage blower,
neither of which was conducive to longevity.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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! --
|