Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:06 AM - E10 fuels for radial engines (Jan Mevis)
2. 03:35 AM - Problem to contact (mougellionel@aol.com)
3. 05:58 AM - Re: Radial Friendly airports between Phoenix and Jersey (Dad)
4. 06:19 AM - Re: M-14 Future and Housai Future (N395V)
5. 10:41 AM - CJ Aux Fuel (Paul Dumoret)
6. 03:21 PM - Fw: Re: More fuel (Walter Lannon)
7. 04:10 PM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Craig Payne)
8. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Walter Lannon)
9. 08:17 PM - Re: Re: More fuel (Brian Lloyd)
10. 10:12 PM - Re: Re: More fuel (Roger Kemp M.D.)
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: | E10 fuels for radial engines |
A lot of Yak-pilots in Europe use mogas simply because it is cheaper (1.4
euro per LITER instead of 2 euro per LITER). The Russian inspectors we asked
about this don't mind. And another argument is that the engines have to be
overhauled anyway after a few hundred hours. But with the ever higher prices
of engines ....
The newer mogas fuels with up to 10 % of Ethanol do cause problems. Ethanol
is a very good solvent, and could cause sediments in the fuel system. This
may clogg up filters etc. But the additional Ethanol is necessary to obtain
a higher octane number, since we must not use any tetraethyl lead anymore.
Thus sooner or later - when avgas will be banned by the governments - we
will have to find adequate solutions.
The problem is indeed the fact that Ethanol binds with water. It is an
efficient drying agent. This ethanol/water emulsion can phase-separate from
the gasoline if allowed to stand still, and then forms a corrosive layer on
the bottom of the fuel tank. The watermolecules form very large clusters
when they take the ethanol out of the gasoline. So they form droplets. Due
to the withdrawal of the Ethanol, the fuel's octane number might be too low.
I think a problem is, that we might not see a lot of this phase-separation
in our fuel reservoirs (especially when doing aerobatics ...). So we get
these emulsions into the fuel pump. The water comes partly in place of the
gasoline, so the pump with loose a lot of its lubrication.
A water-emulsion might raise the viscosity of the fuel - water mixture. The
combustion could be less efficient with unburnt gasoline molecules. This
causes dirty plugs and valves and so on.
Could'nt we try to de-emulgate the water? It would be better to burn
microscopically small water particles.
Just some thoughts, that may be completely wrong. I do know that this is a
very difficult subject.
Jan Mevis
YK50 RA2005K
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: | Problem to contact |
Hello ,
i need to contact i think it's Barry the webmaster of cj6.com the present mail
seems to not working
Is anyone could tell me the good mail adress ?
thanks for all
Happy eastern
Lionel
fr
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radial Friendly airports between Phoenix and Jersey |
Milledgeville is a good choice. :D
Dad
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=171908#171908
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: M-14 Future and Housai Future |
> Hey, but what if you put some Marvel Mystery Oil in it??
>
Then life will be good, peace will spread across the earth and avgas wil go back
to 75cents a gallon.
Nothing is better than MMO
do not archive
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=171914#171914
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 |
|
On a cautionary note following up on Doug and Walt's comments; my CJ has
Doug's aux fuel tanks which are great as I did not have the expense of
install. However, whoever did the install did NOT follow Doug's
instructions and the result was bowed belly skins, and popped rivets on
the tank bottoms, Both tanks had to be removed and new ribs installed
and riveted and welded, and the lower skins replaced along with new
structure to properly support same. This was discovered and repaired by
Bill Nicholson at Star Airmotive in Oroville, Wa. The original job was a
supreme sham and a disgrace to the industry as it was cheap and
ineffective. The straps used to secure the tanks in the bays was 1/16"
steel cable which had almost worn through the tanks on three spots. I
was fortunate not to pop a tank out the bottom during higher "G"
maneuvers.Be very careful who does your "mod" to ensure it is correct.
Cheers,
Paul Dumoret
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 |
|
I thought my comments (at the bottom of Doug's message below) on the modifications
to increase CJ6 fuel capacity would generate some interest and further comment.
Apparently not.
Brian; where are you?
So, since I believe this subject is of paramount importance to the continued operation
of the CJ, I will try again. My comments refer to the bladder modification
but really apply to all fuel increase mods. that increase the applied loads
and/or change the design load paths.
The existing fuel loads are transmitted directly to the front and rear spars through
the tank, the support straps and upper surface inter-spar structure. A
very well proven and traditional method of supporting metal tanks.
The tank access panel is just that, a means of access. It carries none of the fuel
load and is designed only to carry the structural loads of the skin it replaces.
Aircraft utilizing fuel bladders or "wet wings" are specifically designed for that
purpose. The CJ is not.
My original comments were rather "tongue in cheek" in that there is no possibility
(IMHO) that the tank access panel could ever come close to supporting a 9G
test load as would be required for such a modification to a certificated Acrobatic
Category aircraft. I doubt that it would reach 4 G's without failure.
Of course the FAA does not require any such testing for the CJ but they do have
other resources if CJ parts start falling on the general public. They simply
ground them all and Transport Canada follows suit.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Lannon
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: More fuel
----- Original Message -----
From: doug sapp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: More fuel
Craig,
Available aux fuel systems:
My welded tanks give 16.5 gallons per side additional, but on a "per gallon"
basis are the most expensive to install, but you do end up with all new beefed
up .032 skins aft of the main spar top and bottom (stock skins are about .027).
If you want to install bladders AND my tanks you can push 97 gallons! With
Barry's you could have over 100 gallons USEABLE on board, Hello "Tanker 1"!
Vic Air give just a few gallons additional each side, but cut ribs to get it,
and for the cost and trouble really is not worth the small amount of fuel gained.
Bladders give 12 gallons additional each side, but all fuel rests on the lower
tank skins, which I am really not crazy about although Blackewll says they
have done the math.
If that is the case then the fuel load per tank could be 20.3 (77 litres) +
12 = 32.3 Gal or 193.8 lbs.
That is the math, but a little more is required.
Load testing to show compliance for the Acrobatic Category requires the structure
to support a 9G load for a minimum of 3 seconds with no evidence of permanent
deformation.
A load of 1774 lbs. would be distributed over the structural area (the tank
access panel) in a manner that replicates the actual distribution of the operational
load.
Knowing that was successfully accomplished gives one a warm and fuzzy feeling
that the aircraft will not come apart at 6 G's.
Of course, since the aircraft is "experimental" this is not really a requirement.
Cheers:
Walt
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 |
|
Ah yes, let the buyer beware! While my skinny butt appreciates frequent breaks
on x-countries, I like having some options when fuel gets low...such as turning
on the aux tank. To this end I have installed a 15 gallon tank on the ADF rack,
which selectively pumps into the left main tank. Since the left and right
have a cross-feed, I can control my fuel balance.
Balance was the principal problem; until I figured out how to properly rig the
CJ, I had uneven fuel burns. While an uneven burn is not a flight emergency, it
bothered me enough to shorten my flight legs. I find that that 54 gallons usable
is plenty for me. Couple the extra bit of fuel with a clean airframe and
engine tuned for cruise, and I get 11+ nmpg. I did a 520 NM leg once but that
was cutting it down to a 30 minute reserve at reduced power.
The one benefit I can see with those really big tanks is that you can tanker on
up on free fuel at airshows when you leave. However, the trend I have been seeing
is a max gallon per type allotment at airshows.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Craig;
Your aux. tank holds 90 lbs of fuel. With tank and attachment and the pump, if
also mounted on the ADF rack, you have a 100 lb. load. The ADF weighed 50 lbs
and the structure would have been designed for a 6G limit load with an ultimate
of 9G (failure).
The limit load for your aircraft has been reduced to 3G with a full aux. tank.
Failure of the ADF structure could seriously impact elevator and rudder operation
through displacement of the cables.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: yak-list
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 4:06 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: CJ Aux Fuel
Ah yes, let the buyer beware! While my skinny butt appreciates frequent breaks
on x-countries, I like having some options when fuel gets low...such as turning
on the aux tank. To this end I have installed a 15 gallon tank on the ADF
rack, which selectively pumps into the left main tank. Since the left and right
have a cross-feed, I can control my fuel balance.
Balance was the principal problem; until I figured out how to properly rig the
CJ, I had uneven fuel burns. While an uneven burn is not a flight emergency,
it bothered me enough to shorten my flight legs. I find that that 54 gallons
usable is plenty for me. Couple the extra bit of fuel with a clean airframe and
engine tuned for cruise, and I get 11+ nmpg. I did a 520 NM leg once but that
was cutting it down to a 30 minute reserve at reduced power.
The one benefit I can see with those really big tanks is that you can tanker
on up on free fuel at airshows when you leave. However, the trend I have been
seeing is a max gallon per type allotment at airshows.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
On Mar 23, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Walter Lannon wrote:
>
> I thought my comments (at the bottom of Doug's message below) on the
> modifications to increase CJ6 fuel capacity would generate some
> interest and further comment. Apparently not.
> Brian; where are you?
Right here. Since we were doing a complete restoration of The Project
I went with Doug's center-section aux tanks. I still have the stock
main tanks. The installation and structure appeared to be adequate to
the task but I am open for discussion.
> So, since I believe this subject is of paramount importance to the
> continued operation of the CJ, I will try again. My comments refer
> to the bladder modification but really apply to all fuel increase
> mods. that increase the applied loads and/or change the design load
> paths.
>
> The existing fuel loads are transmitted directly to the front and
> rear spars through the tank, the support straps and upper surface
> inter-spar structure. A very well proven and traditional method of
> supporting metal tanks.
> The tank access panel is just that, a means of access. It carries
> none of the fuel load and is designed only to carry the structural
> loads of the skin it replaces.
>
> Aircraft utilizing fuel bladders or "wet wings" are specifically
> designed for that purpose. The CJ is not.
>
> My original comments were rather "tongue in cheek" in that there is
> no possibility (IMHO) that the tank access panel could ever come
> close to supporting a 9G test load as would be required for such a
> modification to acertificated Acrobatic Category aircraft. I doubt
> that it would reach 4 G's without failure.
>
> Of course the FAA does not require any such testing for the CJ but
> they do have other resources if CJ parts start falling on the
> general public. They simply ground them all and Transport Canada
> follows suit.
Well, so far, not many CJs are falling from the sky. OTOH, I suspect
that most people who put the extra fuel in are not using them to do 6G
acro. Regardless, I think your point is well taken.
--
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
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 |
|
Brian,
With the bladder mod as I understand and have seen with the YAK-52, the
access panel does bear the load of the fuel in the bladder. For the 52, we
are talking about 25 gallons per side calculated but with foam and mods to
accommodate the strap mounts it comes out to 46 gal total. As I understand
the YAKOLEV engineers have approved the bladders as stated by one of our EU
listers. Their recommendation is that acro be done at reduce fuel load (1/2
approximately). I could only assume that would be the case with the CJ also.
FWIW, the straps are removed from the fuel bay on the 52 so there is no
distribution of the load to the spar from what I see. It is born by
attachment to the fuel filler mouth on the top of the wing. Again no data on
G loads only the assumption that 7lb/gal X XG's will be carried by the
access panel and the flange mounted to the filler mouth.
So as Walt says load the fuel bay panels with caution. The floor of the
bladder is supported by that panel and industrial strength Velcro.
I will most likely install the bladders in due time after observing the
progress of the first few installed. I have a couple of questions unanswered
as yet.
If you are going to fly the plane pretty much in finger tip or some
variation thereof, then I would not be too worried about the G loads on the
panel.
This is not being said to disparage the manufacturer or the distributors of
the bladders. I have even looked into having them made for the 50 when my
main tank sprang a leak at one of the button welds for the baffle. There are
again questions about distribution of G loads. The manufactures' (and mine)
calculations indicate that the 50 would pickup an additional 18 gal. That
would be great for XC but not for around the local drome doing Acro or
flying formation. Fabricating a drop tank would be a better choice probably.
Even with the internal AUX tank, the recommendations are that it be flown
with no more than 15 gal in the acro tank when flying acro. Since we do not
have the data from the YAKOLEV design bureau as to why that restriction was
placed on the aircraft I cannot comment but only assume the bulkheads were
not designed to carry G loads at anything above 15 gallons in the bladder
safely when performing acro. I guess that would be in keeping with the
recommendations of the design bureau would it not?
So saying that be careful with those tanks resting on the fuel bay panels.
Now I do know that an engineer has installed the bladders for the 52 and
will be testing them. Time will answer the questions. But for now, it is
150-200 NM legs on an XC. I'm not an aeronautical engineer and I did not
sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night so I will wait for a few more
answers.
Viperdoc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: More fuel
On Mar 23, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Walter Lannon wrote:
>
> I thought my comments (at the bottom of Doug's message below) on the
> modifications to increase CJ6 fuel capacity would generate some
> interest and further comment. Apparently not.
> Brian; where are you?
Right here. Since we were doing a complete restoration of The Project
I went with Doug's center-section aux tanks. I still have the stock
main tanks. The installation and structure appeared to be adequate to
the task but I am open for discussion.
> So, since I believe this subject is of paramount importance to the
> continued operation of the CJ, I will try again. My comments refer
> to the bladder modification but really apply to all fuel increase
> mods. that increase the applied loads and/or change the design load
> paths.
>
> The existing fuel loads are transmitted directly to the front and
> rear spars through the tank, the support straps and upper surface
> inter-spar structure. A very well proven and traditional method of
> supporting metal tanks.
> The tank access panel is just that, a means of access. It carries
> none of the fuel load and is designed only to carry the structural
> loads of the skin it replaces.
>
> Aircraft utilizing fuel bladders or "wet wings" are specifically
> designed for that purpose. The CJ is not.
>
> My original comments were rather "tongue in cheek" in that there is
> no possibility (IMHO) that the tank access panel could ever come
> close to supporting a 9G test load as would be required for such a
> modification to acertificated Acrobatic Category aircraft. I doubt
> that it would reach 4 G's without failure.
>
> Of course the FAA does not require any such testing for the CJ but
> they do have other resources if CJ parts start falling on the
> general public. They simply ground them all and Transport Canada
> follows suit.
Well, so far, not many CJs are falling from the sky. OTOH, I suspect
that most people who put the extra fuel in are not using them to do 6G
acro. Regardless, I think your point is well taken.
--
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! --
|