Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:27 AM - Re: Re: More fuel (A. Dennis Savarese)
2. 07:54 AM - extra fuel (Doug Zeissner)
3. 09:54 AM - Model of CJ6 (Jim Bernier)
4. 11:17 AM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Barry Hancock)
5. 11:29 AM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Gill Gutierrez)
6. 11:59 AM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Brian Lloyd)
7. 12:03 PM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Brian Lloyd)
8. 12:16 PM - Aux tanks for the CJ (Hal)
9. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: M-14 Future and Housai Future (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
10. 12:23 PM - Re: M14P fuel grade requirement (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
11. 12:34 PM - Re: Re: M-14 Future and Housai Future (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
12. 02:06 PM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Gill Gutierrez)
13. 04:07 PM - YAK 52 Bladders (Gill Gutierrez)
14. 04:09 PM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Frank Stelwagon)
15. 07:09 PM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Andrews)
16. 07:35 PM - Re: CJ Aux Fuel (Frank Stelwagon)
17. 07:41 PM - tanks (Terry Lewis)
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 |
|
One minor correction. The bladders are not "supported" by Velcro. IF the
installer uses the Velcro during installation, it is used to retain the
bladder shape without fuel in it, along with the fuel filler plate affixed
to the top surface of the fuel filler opening in the wing. Installing the
foam in the bladder is the preferred method of bladder shape retention.
Plus the foam provides the baffling inside the tank to reduce the sloshing
of the fuel. Simulated G-Load testing was accomplished on the 52 bladder
while installed in the aircraft, to 7.5G's. The fuel cavity cover plate,
which on the 52 is a braced cover plate, exhibited no structural stressing.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:08 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: More fuel
> <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> 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
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> 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
>
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks everyone for your comments concerning extra fuel for the CJ. The
modification from Barry's shop
sounds like it might fit the bill for the capacity that I am looking for
without the possible structural compromise.
It would be a matter of how the tanks are constructed and supported by
the existing straps. Are the straps supplemented and / or beefed up to
handle 50% more load? Is the modification to the outboard rib adequate
to maintain integrity?
Will the mod be available in kit form? How is the tank to be vented?
What is the bottom line on price?
Doug Zeissner
email: doug.zeissner@rdmd.ocgov.com
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 |
|
For those of you who are interested in getting a 1/32 scale plastic model
of the CJ6.
I just received one from Discount Plastic Models for $35.99. Good detail
with 135 parts.
The item number is TRP0002240. You may be able to go to the web site:
http://www.hobbysurplus.com/search_result.asp?category=Models+%2D+Plastic
+Airplane&subcategory=1%3A32+Scale&manufacturer=Trumpeter+Models
And it is made in China. Where else?
JimB
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 |
|
Gang,
You're points are all well taken. Since we are nearing the
completion of our first set of 30 gallon tanks for the CJ, I think
this is a good time to bring our reasoning and design criterion into
the discussion.
1) I have Doug Sapp's center wing fuel tanks that add an additional
34 gallons of capacity on "Panda" (coincidentally, she's the "cover
girl" on the 2nd March issue of TAP). This structure is much more
robust than the company that installed Paul's tanks. We were aware
at that time of the problems with the other install and made sure we
did the job right. This was done prior to Worldwide Warbirds by an
independent 3rd party. It was given the thumbs up by a local DER and
has proven itself well.
The downside of this mod, in my opinion, it that it is very labor
intensive to install and cost me about $9k all up 5 years ago. At
today's labor rates, it would be even more expensive. However, if
you have the desire to carry 74 gallons of fuel, this is your best
bet. Even at the ripe young age of 40 I find anything more than 3
hours in the saddle of a CJ an effort in mind over matter
control....others will find it a mind over bladder issue....either
way it's pain I don't care to willingly endure. Soo....
2) 60 gallons seems about right. That's roughly 4 hours to empty at
cruise settings. 3 hours with adequate reserves, even in the
northern US and other parts of the West where options if you run into
weather can be quite sparse. It's also good for 3 45 min. formation
flights without a refill.
3) The bladders offer a good increase in fuel capacity, but as Walt
mentioned there are possible engineering issues. To date, everything
is OK with them, though I have heard of a few torn bladders on
installation, etc. The other issue is they are a) labor intensive to
install, b) require new fuel level senders, new venting, new fuel
gauge, etc., c) require maintenance (inspections), and d) are life
limited.
After looking at the bladder installation, we decided there had to be
a better way. The goals of our system are:
1) Cost effective. The bladders, at approx. $6k installed are a
good value. We needed to be in that ballpark.
2) Simple to install. Avoid having to remove the wing from the
aircraft or removing the butt rib to install the tank. This saves
time and money, and makes it reasonable to produce in kit form.
3) Maintain the integrity of the original system as much as
possible. This means same vent system, same senders, same gauge,
same installation techniques, etc.
4) Structurally sound and FAA DER approved installation. Clearly
the mod needs to be structurally sound, safe under load, and built to
last.
Methodology:
1) Use former Boeing and current DoD recognized engineers familiar
with structure design to bring the concept to life and develop drawings
2) Use highly qualified structural sheet metal mechanics to
fabricate tanks and modify the fuel tank bay.
3) Make tank more user friendly with new fuel filler/cap, and quick
drain on the bottom.
4) Weld tanks using award winning welder with considerable fuel tank
experience.
Our first tank will be welded this week and we will begin wing
modification. We anticipate having the first tank installed in 3-4
weeks. We will then install these tanks in 3 aircraft, again, with
FAA DER approved design, which will allow us to build the
installation instructions and sell the tanks in "kit" form.
Anyone who is interested in this mod for their aircraft please
contact me directly. We anticipate having the first set ready for
delivery in kit form sometime this summer.
Thanks!
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
office (909) 606-4444
cell (949) 300-5510
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
www.cj6.com
Express Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave, B-110, Unit J
Chino, CA 91710
Regular Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave., Box 91
Chino, CA 91710
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients. If
the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, forwarding or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
immediately by reply e-mail or telephone, and delete the original
message and all attachments from your system. Thank you
On Mar 23, 2008, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
> Time: 10:41:28 AM PST US
> From: "Paul Dumoret" <3bar@telus.net>
> Subject: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>
> 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 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 |
|
Barry,
This at best is self serving
Gill
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Hancock
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
Gang,
You're points are all well taken. Since we are nearing the completion of our
first set of 30 gallon tanks for the CJ, I think this is a good time to
bring our reasoning and design criterion into the discussion.
1) I have Doug Sapp's center wing fuel tanks that add an additional 34
gallons of capacity on "Panda" (coincidentally, she's the "cover girl" on
the 2nd March issue of TAP). This structure is much more robust than the
company that installed Paul's tanks. We were aware at that time of the
problems with the other install and made sure we did the job right. This was
done prior to Worldwide Warbirds by an independent 3rd party. It was given
the thumbs up by a local DER and has proven itself well.
The downside of this mod, in my opinion, it that it is very labor intensive
to install and cost me about $9k all up 5 years ago. At today's labor rates,
it would be even more expensive. However, if you have the desire to carry 74
gallons of fuel, this is your best bet. Even at the ripe young age of 40 I
find anything more than 3 hours in the saddle of a CJ an effort in mind over
matter control....others will find it a mind over bladder issue....either
way it's pain I don't care to willingly endure. Soo....
2) 60 gallons seems about right. That's roughly 4 hours to empty at cruise
settings. 3 hours with adequate reserves, even in the northern US and other
parts of the West where options if you run into weather can be quite sparse.
It's also good for 3 45 min. formation flights without a refill.
3) The bladders offer a good increase in fuel capacity, but as Walt
mentioned there are possible engineering issues. To date, everything is OK
with them, though I have heard of a few torn bladders on installation, etc.
The other issue is they are a) labor intensive to install, b) require new
fuel level senders, new venting, new fuel gauge, etc., c) require
maintenance (inspections), and d) are life limited.
After looking at the bladder installation, we decided there had to be a
better way. The goals of our system are:
1) Cost effective. The bladders, at approx. $6k installed are a good value.
We needed to be in that ballpark.
2) Simple to install. Avoid having to remove the wing from the aircraft or
removing the butt rib to install the tank. This saves time and money, and
makes it reasonable to produce in kit form.
3) Maintain the integrity of the original system as much as possible. This
means same vent system, same senders, same gauge, same installation
techniques, etc.
4) Structurally sound and FAA DER approved installation. Clearly the mod
needs to be structurally sound, safe under load, and built to last.
Methodology:
1) Use former Boeing and current DoD recognized engineers familiar with
structure design to bring the concept to life and develop drawings
2) Use highly qualified structural sheet metal mechanics to fabricate tanks
and modify the fuel tank bay.
3) Make tank more user friendly with new fuel filler/cap, and quick drain on
the bottom.
4) Weld tanks using award winning welder with considerable fuel tank
experience.
Our first tank will be welded this week and we will begin wing modification.
We anticipate having the first tank installed in 3-4 weeks. We will then
install these tanks in 3 aircraft, again, with FAA DER approved design,
which will allow us to build the installation instructions and sell the
tanks in "kit" form.
Anyone who is interested in this mod for their aircraft please contact me
directly. We anticipate having the first set ready for delivery in kit form
sometime this summer.
Thanks!
Barry
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
office (909) 606-4444
cell (949) 300-5510
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
www.cj6.com
Express Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave, B-110, Unit J
Chino, CA 91710
Regular Mailing address:
7000 Merrill Ave., Box 91
Chino, CA 91710
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the designated recipients. If the reader of
this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, use, dissemination, forwarding or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or
telephone, and delete the original message and all attachments from your
system. Thank you
On Mar 23, 2008, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
Time: 10:41:28 AM PST US
From: "Paul Dumoret" <3bar@telus.net>
Subject: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
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 |
|
> Even at the ripe young age of 40 I find anything more than 3 hours
> in the saddle of a CJ an effort in mind over matter
> control....others will find it a mind over bladder issue....either
> way it's pain I don't care to willingly endure. Soo....
>
> 2) 60 gallons seems about right. That's roughly 4 hours to empty
> at cruise settings. 3 hours with adequate reserves, even in the
> northern US and other parts of the West where options if you run
> into weather can be quite sparse. It's also good for 3 45 min.
> formation flights without a refill.
Actually, I find the real need for more fuel is to give me flexibility
about where I stop for fuel on long cross-country flights. A quick
gander at AirNav will show something like a $2-per-gallon difference
depending on where you stop. Being able to overfly several expensive
airports and then land at a field with cheaper gas can make a HUGE
difference in the cost of cross-country flying.
Case in point, I saved over $500 in fuel costs on a round-trip to the
other coast last year. That pays for a lot of burgers.
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 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 |
|
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Gill Gutierrez wrote:
> Barry,
>
> This at best is self serving
Why would you say that? We are talking about ways to beef up the
structure to support additional fuel. Just because Barry sells
airplanes doesn't mean his engineering data is less useful.
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 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: | Aux tanks for the CJ |
I use Doug Sapp's tanks in both the CJ I've flown for the last ten years and
the project. Bill Nicholson did both installations and the system has been
safely done and has operated flawlessly.
Doug's tanks fit into the inner wing root. They are welded aluminum and
solidly supported. The aux tanks sit a little lower than the mains (which
are stock) so fuel gravity flows from the mains to the aux tanks thereby
reducing the moment around the fore and aft axis.
On long trips I fill the aux tanks first, close them and then fill the
mains. Total with the header tank is about 74 gallons providing for very
comfortable 3.5 hour legs with plenty to spare for contingencies.
Around home I generally add fuel through the mains and let it settle into
the aux tanks (they are easier to reach). For aerobatics I usually have
10-15 gallons a side in the aux with empty mains. I suppose it helps my
role rate a bit, but in the CJ who's counting?
Batman
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-14 Future and Housai Future |
Steve... Why the heck didn't I think of that? It makes perfect sense.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mozam
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:50
Subject: Yak-List: Re: M-14 Future and Housai Future
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m wrote:
>
> How might one REMOVE alchohol from gas?
>
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> --
Ethanol and water readily join together when both are present in
gasoline. This clearly visible water/ethanol mixture lays on the bottom
of the fuel tank (or testing jar). This how you easily test mogas for
the presense of any alcohol.
Theoretically, you could put 85 gal of mogas (with 15% ethanol) into a
100 gallon plastic tank mounted in the back of a pick up truck, add 15
gallons of clean water to it, drive around a while to mix it up, then
drain the water and ethanol out of the bottom of the tank. The
remaining mogas is ethanol free.
I have heard rumors of someone already doing this in a part of the
country where ethanol free mogas is unavailable.
I am lucky and have pure mogas available where I live. I have used it,
mixed with some 100LL, in my Yak for years. I expect the time will come
when I'm running 100% mogas with a lead additive (available at Walmart)
in it.
Cheers,
Steve Dalton
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=171670#171670
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: | M14P fuel grade requirement |
I guess that is why it seems to run very well with a 50/50 mix of 93 octane mogas
and 100 octane aviation LL.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Goode
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:04
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M14P fuel grade requirement
For the M14P it is 91octane [aviation method] ,which the Russians equate to 95.5
for the automotive method.
There are no figures for the PF,but with a higher boost it's requirement must be
higher.
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Lloyd <mailto:brian-1927@lloyd.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:35 AM
Subject: Yak-List: M14P fuel grade requirement
What is the official fuel-grade requirement for the M14P? Is is 80/87,
93/96, or 100?
Is it any different for the M14PF? I would think it would be as the
boost is higher.
--
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 p; Navigator Photoshare, and href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronicsnbsp; via the Web href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: M-14 Future and Housai Future |
I thought you said you weren't a freaking chemist?
Mark
P.s. What he said made sense to me, now I'm back to square one.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:45
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: M-14 Future and Housai Future
On Mar 22, 2008, at 1:49 AM, Mozam wrote:
> Ethanol and water readily join together when both are present in
> gasoline. This clearly visible water/ethanol mixture lays on the
> bottom of the fuel tank (or testing jar). This how you easily test
> mogas for the presense of any alcohol.
The first part of what you say is correct. The second part is not.
When there is no alcohol in gasoline the gasoline and water do not mix. When there
is alcohol present the alcohol serves as a carrier to bond the water to the
gasoline, making the water appear to dissolve in the gasoline. No water appears
as a separate layer. How much water you can get into solution is a function
of how much alcohol is present.
> Theoretically, you could put 85 gal of mogas (with 15% ethanol) into a
> 100 gallon plastic tank mounted in the back of a pick up truck, add 15
> gallons of clean water to it, drive around a while to mix it
> up, then drain the water and ethanol out of the bottom of the tank.
> The remaining mogas is ethanol free.
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! THIS IS NOT TRUE! The alcohol will bond the water to the gasoline
and now your gasoline will have water in it. So the alcohol serves to pull
the water into the gasoline rather than the water pulling the alcohol out
of the gasoline.
> I have heard rumors of someone already doing this in a part of the
> country where ethanol free mogas is unavailable.
If they are they are asking for a problem as it is possible to force the water
out of solution by lowering the temperature (as in when you climb). Imagine that
your gasoline is carrying water, the temp in the tank drops as you climb, the
water precipitates out of solution, and goes to the low point in the tank (water
is more dense than gasoline) where it now freezes ... in the fuel line.
As a matter of fact your engine is NOT going to start again before you reach the
ground.
> I am lucky and have pure mogas available where I live. I have used
> it, mixed with some 100LL, in my Yak for years. I expect the time
> will come when I'm running 100% mogas with a lead additive (available
> at Walmart) in it.
Well, you can't get a real lead additive. Most "lead additives" are alcohol or
other aromatics to increase octane added to other things that purport to provide
the necessary lubrication. They are of dubious value.
I think it is possible to fly with alcohol in your fuel if the fuel system components
are designed for it but keeping the fuel "dry" will be the supreme challenge.
> Cheers,
> Steve Dalton
--
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 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 |
|
Brian,
I agree we should all attempt to get to the best solution. I just think we
should use the best information.
The last I saw, Barry had not provided any engineering data. He did,
however, relate the following misinformation: "To date, everything is OK
with them, though I have heard of a few torn bladders on installation, etc.
The other issue is they are a) labor intensive to install, b) require new
fuel level senders, new venting, new fuel gauge, etc., c) require
maintenance (inspections), and d) are life limited." There is no data given
for how long it will take to install Barry's metal tanks so I am unsure what
he means by his reference to bladder installation labor; there has been only
one instance of a bladder puncture and that was a handling issue prior to
installation; fuel level senders indeed are different but were necessary to
provide a more accurate fuel reading in the larger geometry(a change by
design); no fuel gauges have ever been replaced but they could be if you
want to have a fancy digital. I'm unaware of anyone using other than the
standard CJ gauge; and regarding maintenance and life you just have to look
at Bill Blackwell's stack leaking metal tanks. Besides bladders like metal
tanks can and do require maintenance.
There are twenty plus CJs using bladders, the oldest is 5 years. Barry has
yet to build and install his metal tanks. The CJ bladder system has been
tested to assure that it will withstand not only the g forces but also the
forces resulting from the vents caused by air speed.
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Gill Gutierrez wrote:
> Barry,
>
> This at best is self serving
Why would you say that? We are talking about ways to beef up the
structure to support additional fuel. Just because Barry sells
airplanes doesn't mean his engineering data is less useful.
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 |
|
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the YAK 52 bladders being
offered by Dennis Savarese. You should be aware that the test of the
"ACCESS PANEL" loading considered both potential g forces at maximum fuel
capacity and forces caused by the maximum velocity pressure from the fuel
vent system forward facing pickup at Ve and excluded lift pressure of the
panel's wing surface. It was not a simple estimate of fuel weight.
This comment is not intended to warrant anyone's use of the bladders but
simply to indicate that more than simplistic installation of a bladder in a
cavity was done.
Comments regarding the Velcro support are generally correct in that its sole
purpose is to hold the bladder open. However, the inclusion of foam
eliminates the need for the Velcro.
Gill
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 |
|
God what a bunch of whiners!
Frank
CJ6A N23021
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Gutierrez" <Gill.G@gpimail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>
> Brian,
>
> I agree we should all attempt to get to the best solution. I just think
> we
> should use the best information.
>
> The last I saw, Barry had not provided any engineering data. He did,
> however, relate the following misinformation: "To date, everything is OK
> with them, though I have heard of a few torn bladders on installation,
> etc.
> The other issue is they are a) labor intensive to install, b) require new
> fuel level senders, new venting, new fuel gauge, etc., c) require
> maintenance (inspections), and d) are life limited." There is no data
> given
> for how long it will take to install Barry's metal tanks so I am unsure
> what
> he means by his reference to bladder installation labor; there has been
> only
> one instance of a bladder puncture and that was a handling issue prior to
> installation; fuel level senders indeed are different but were necessary
> to
> provide a more accurate fuel reading in the larger geometry(a change by
> design); no fuel gauges have ever been replaced but they could be if you
> want to have a fancy digital. I'm unaware of anyone using other than the
> standard CJ gauge; and regarding maintenance and life you just have to
> look
> at Bill Blackwell's stack leaking metal tanks. Besides bladders like
> metal
> tanks can and do require maintenance.
>
> There are twenty plus CJs using bladders, the oldest is 5 years. Barry
> has
> yet to build and install his metal tanks. The CJ bladder system has been
> tested to assure that it will withstand not only the g forces but also the
> forces resulting from the vents caused by air speed.
>
> Gill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Gill Gutierrez wrote:
>> Barry,
>>
>> This at best is self serving
>
> Why would you say that? We are talking about ways to beef up the
> structure to support additional fuel. Just because Barry sells
> airplanes doesn't mean his engineering data is less useful.
>
> 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 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 |
|
FRANK YOU MUST BE ONE OF THE WHINERS?
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Stelwagon" <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
>
> God what a bunch of whiners!
>
> Frank
>
> CJ6A N23021
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Gutierrez" <Gill.G@gpimail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:58 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>
>
>>
>> Brian,
>>
>> I agree we should all attempt to get to the best solution. I just think
>> we
>> should use the best information.
>>
>> The last I saw, Barry had not provided any engineering data. He did,
>> however, relate the following misinformation: "To date, everything is OK
>> with them, though I have heard of a few torn bladders on installation,
>> etc.
>> The other issue is they are a) labor intensive to install, b) require new
>> fuel level senders, new venting, new fuel gauge, etc., c) require
>> maintenance (inspections), and d) are life limited." There is no data
>> given
>> for how long it will take to install Barry's metal tanks so I am unsure
>> what
>> he means by his reference to bladder installation labor; there has been
>> only
>> one instance of a bladder puncture and that was a handling issue prior to
>> installation; fuel level senders indeed are different but were necessary
>> to
>> provide a more accurate fuel reading in the larger geometry(a change by
>> design); no fuel gauges have ever been replaced but they could be if you
>> want to have a fancy digital. I'm unaware of anyone using other than the
>> standard CJ gauge; and regarding maintenance and life you just have to
>> look
>> at Bill Blackwell's stack leaking metal tanks. Besides bladders like
>> metal
>> tanks can and do require maintenance.
>>
>> There are twenty plus CJs using bladders, the oldest is 5 years. Barry
>> has
>> yet to build and install his metal tanks. The CJ bladder system has been
>> tested to assure that it will withstand not only the g forces but also
>> the
>> forces resulting from the vents caused by air speed.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
>> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:58 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Gill Gutierrez wrote:
>>> Barry,
>>>
>>> This at best is self serving
>>
>> Why would you say that? We are talking about ways to beef up the
>> structure to support additional fuel. Just because Barry sells
>> airplanes doesn't mean his engineering data is less useful.
>>
>> 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 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 |
|
NOT HARDLY. It seems that on the list everybody has to criticize anybody's
new idea. If you don't like the new equipment don't buy it, but don't
complain about.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrews" <DANDMAZ@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>
> FRANK YOU MUST BE ONE OF THE WHINERS?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Stelwagon" <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>
>
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
>>
>> God what a bunch of whiners!
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> CJ6A N23021
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gill Gutierrez" <Gill.G@gpimail.com>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:58 PM
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> I agree we should all attempt to get to the best solution. I just think
>>> we
>>> should use the best information.
>>>
>>> The last I saw, Barry had not provided any engineering data. He did,
>>> however, relate the following misinformation: "To date, everything is
>>> OK
>>> with them, though I have heard of a few torn bladders on installation,
>>> etc.
>>> The other issue is they are a) labor intensive to install, b) require
>>> new
>>> fuel level senders, new venting, new fuel gauge, etc., c) require
>>> maintenance (inspections), and d) are life limited." There is no data
>>> given
>>> for how long it will take to install Barry's metal tanks so I am unsure
>>> what
>>> he means by his reference to bladder installation labor; there has been
>>> only
>>> one instance of a bladder puncture and that was a handling issue prior
>>> to
>>> installation; fuel level senders indeed are different but were necessary
>>> to
>>> provide a more accurate fuel reading in the larger geometry(a change by
>>> design); no fuel gauges have ever been replaced but they could be if you
>>> want to have a fancy digital. I'm unaware of anyone using other than
>>> the
>>> standard CJ gauge; and regarding maintenance and life you just have to
>>> look
>>> at Bill Blackwell's stack leaking metal tanks. Besides bladders like
>>> metal
>>> tanks can and do require maintenance.
>>>
>>> There are twenty plus CJs using bladders, the oldest is 5 years. Barry
>>> has
>>> yet to build and install his metal tanks. The CJ bladder system has
>>> been
>>> tested to assure that it will withstand not only the g forces but also
>>> the
>>> forces resulting from the vents caused by air speed.
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
>>> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:58 AM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: CJ Aux Fuel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Gill Gutierrez wrote:
>>>> Barry,
>>>>
>>>> This at best is self serving
>>>
>>> Why would you say that? We are talking about ways to beef up the
>>> structure to support additional fuel. Just because Barry sells
>>> airplanes doesn't mean his engineering data is less useful.
>>>
>>> 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 |
|
I am led back to a saying that I was encouraged to contemplate in
college.
Small minds discuss people.
Average minds discuss things.
Great minds discuss ideas.
Lets continue to discuss and evaluate the Ideas.
We , as a group, are good enough to strive for this.
Terry
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! --
|