Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:33 AM - Housai (Kelley Monroe)
2. 09:50 AM - Re: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project (Sonic1)
3. 10:10 AM - Re: Housai (Jim)
4. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project (dabear)
5. 10:43 AM - Re: Re: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project (vectorwarbirds@aol.com)
6. 11:04 AM - GT propeller blades on V530 hubs (Richard Goode)
7. 11:12 AM - Russia (Richard Goode)
8. 04:28 PM - Re: Russia (Didier Blouzard)
9. 07:18 PM - Re: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs (Rick VOLKER)
10. 07:38 PM - Re: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs (Eric Wobschall)
11. 07:54 PM - Re: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs (kevin kimball)
12. 08:01 PM - Re: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs (kevin kimball)
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 |
|
I just purchased a CJ that needs a Housia engine and prop. If anyone
has a rebuilt or low timer please contact me off list. Thanks Kelley
Monroe kelmonroe@comcast.net
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: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project |
Is this the correct pump?
http://www.yachtsupplydepot.com/mechanical-supplies/fuel-pumps/facet-integral-filter-pump-40237/prod_23430.html
Thanks,
Jeff.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269501#269501
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/web_facet_p11_172.pdf
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 |
|
Kelley
I have New BLades and also a Complete New Propeller and Hub, I have a
used Engine, Runs well but has alott of Time on it.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelley Monroe
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 5:31 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Housai
I just purchased a CJ that needs a Housia engine and prop. If anyone
has a rebuilt or low timer please contact me off list. Thanks Kelley
Monroe kelmonroe@comcast.net
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: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project |
If anyone has a parts list/skematic drawing based on their lessons learned
from having done this for fuel pump/primer, it would be greatly appreciated.
I hate re-learning things that people on this list already know.
Bear
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sonic1" <jeff@cj6a.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:49 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project
>
> Is this the correct pump?
>
> http://www.yachtsupplydepot.com/mechanical-supplies/fuel-pumps/facet-integral-filter-pump-40237/prod_23430.html
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269501#269501
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/web_facet_p11_172.pdf
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project |
We use Facet 476088 in Aircraft Spruce, under fuel pumps. I would not be
using a plastic bowl anything in an aircraft.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sonic1 <jeff@cj6a.ca>
Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2009 9:49 am
Subject: Yak-List: Re: CJ electric fuel pump? Winter project
Is this the correct pump?
http://www.yachtsupplydepot.com/mechanical-supplies/fuel-pumps/facet-integ
ral-filter-pump-40237/prod_23430.html
Thanks,
eff.
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269501#269501
ttachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/web_facet_p11_172.pdf
-========================
========================
===========
-= - The Yak-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | GT propeller blades on V530 hubs |
I am disappointed by the lack of objectivity in Rick Volker's posting.
Before anything else, and before I am accused of bias, could I make the
following clear.
a.. I am a MT agent and sell a large number of MT propellers for a
variety of applications.
b.. In Europe we have a significant problem of propellers, since MT,
while excellent are expensive, and we can ONLY use certificated
propellers. With ground strikes; old age etc we are running out of
blades for our V-530s, and there simply are no other substitutes we can
use.
c.. I have been a keen supporter of GT Propellers, and indeed am
currently assisting them to get full European certification with EASA
(our overall aviation controlling body)
d.. I have always been concerned about the safety of propellers.
Some years ago I had a major failure on a propeller (not V-530/MT!)
which was very nearly disastrous, and this is a fundamental reason why I
am very careful about the propellers behind which I will fly, and which
propellers I will recommend. There have been a number of high-profile
propeller failures of non-certificated props, and, in my view, until a
propeller has been properly tested AND certificated, I believe that any
purchaser should tread very carefully.
To deal with the statistical evidence, I re-emphasise that I am very
keen for the GT propellers to perform well against the more established
props. Having said that I have been involved in extensive propeller
trials, and I have concerns about the following issues:
a.. Ricks figures are a single figure for each propeller and each
perameter. For properly objective tests you need to run each perameter
at least three times.
b.. they are not mentioned so possibly he did them, but I doubt if
there were proper corrections for temperature and pressure changes,
which make a huge difference to these things. I am very aware of how
long it takes to contact these tests, and things can change quite
rapidly, particularly during the time that it takes to change from one
propeller to another.
c.. Aircraft weights need to be exactly identical - it is all too
easy to contact one test; fly again, without precisely filling fuel and
oil to the same level.
d.. Rick refers to "more static thrust" - I do not see any figures, so
wonder whether these were properly measured.
e.. Rick refers to "dynamically balanced", but clearly these props are
being removed and put back on again, in which case the dynamic balance
will certainly be lost. IF these propellers were not being immediately
put on, then how long and over what period were the tests being
conducted, and certainly if time has been taken to re-dynamically
balance each propeller, then there must have been climatic changes.
f.. It is also slightly misleading to refer to the MTV3 propeller -
this is an old design, long out of production, and only likely to be
available second hand.
g.. For pricing, Rick is somewhat misleading to suggest that the GT
propeller is half the price of MT. He gives a price of US $8,428, but
this is only for two GT propeller blades. The current list price for a
complete MTV-9-250 or 260 is US $15,600. This is of course for a
factory new propeller, absolutely complete, whereas the GT price of US
$8,428 is simply for two blades, so you then need to get a hub; overhaul
it; install the blades; balance etc.
So to conclude, I am very much a supporter of GT propeller, and I am
hoping that we are able to obtain full certification for their blades.
BUT any performance / cost comparisons between propellers MUST be done
scientifically and objectively!
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340 120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340 129
www.russianaeros.com
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 |
|
For those who are interested in these things, I have just returned from
Moscow, and met with Yakovlev.
The order (which was between the Russian Minister of Transport and the
Smolensk factory for sixty 18Ts was actually extended to a further
fifteen, which were old airframes and rebuilt.
These aircraft have been delivered, but there have been huge problems
trying to get sufficient engines, and although nominally new we know
that large amounts of the engines are actually overhauled components!
The Ministry has asked for further planes, but it would seem that there
are insufficient engines for the order to be taken.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340 120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340 129
www.russianaeros.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 |
|
Hi Richard,
So will they build new motors???
Or will the price of the motors get higher and higher because of th demand?
kind regards
Didier
2009/10/26 Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
> For those who are interested in these things, I have just returned from
> Moscow, and met with Yakovlev.
>
> The order (which was between the Russian Minister of Transport and the
> Smolensk factory for sixty 18Ts was actually extended to a further fifteen,
> which were old airframes and rebuilt.
>
> These aircraft have been delivered, but there have been huge problems
> trying to get sufficient engines, and although nominally new we know that
> large amounts of the engines are actually overhauled components!
>
> The Ministry has asked for further planes, but it would seem that there are
> insufficient engines for the order to be taken.
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Herefordshire
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340 120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340 129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Didier BLOUZARD
didier.blouzard@gmail.com
0624243672
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: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs |
In reading my original prop comparison post, you will notice my
"for more information, contact:". I chose not to display all
information due to quantity, hoping any interested parties would
contact me for the details. Let me fill you in:
On September 11,2009 at KIAG airport;
Flight one-1300 local time: MTV3. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight with
test average noted.
Flight two-1430 local time: V530. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
unchanged at 778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute
flight with test average noted.
Flight three-1630 local time: GT 250 cm blades on V530 hub. SU26M,
full fuel. Density altitude 774'. Each test repeated three times
during 25 minute flight with test average noted.
On September 15,2009 at KIAG airport:
Flight one-1130 local time:MTV9. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
1037'. Altitude for tests changed to adjust for different density
altitude. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight with
test average noted.
Note;
-Aircraft weight was identical for each flight. Oil and fuel were
exactly the same. The Profile for each flight was identical so that
the weight of the aircraft would be identical for each part of the
flight compared. Weather data can be confirmed via online sources.
-Static thrust was not directly measured, however stall speed tests
under full power with this weight aircraft allowed gross comparisons
of relative thrust at close to zero airspeed. Differences between
aircraft were marked and statistically significant.
-The MTV9 was dynamic balanced on this aircraft before flight. Other
props were not. I agree that dynamic balance performed on other
aircraft are next to useless. Dynamic balance of V530 prop is more
difficult on Yak 52 because of the proximity of blade to the ground
allowing buffeting to limit ground run rpm and the lack of a spinner
backplate for fine tuning.
The purpose of my post was to alert Yak 52 owners to a
good alternative to MT if the original V530 blades must be replaced
or if performance enhancements are desired. The price is not so
expensive if you already have a good V530 hub. The MTV3 and
MTV9-260-29 were owned by me and do not represent all of the choices
in selecting a new MT prop.
My experience with MT has been mixed. A new MTV9-260-29
prop was so rough in flight that MT eventually sent me a new set of
blades that corrected the problem, after 3 dynamic balance attempts
with 2 complete tear-downs/inspections in between. But this all took
one year. They do not yet know what was wrong with the original new
blades. I had to find other props to get me through my air show
season. MT did not have a loaner. I had a spare MTV3. GT Propellers
also offered to loan me their blades for a spare V530 hub that I
owned. A friend with a Yak 52 offered me a 20 hr TT V530. I compared
them out of curiosity. It would have been much better to have an MTV9
of the proper length and type blade design with a Yak 52 to compare.
The MTV3 has been around and many M14P pilots are familiar with them.
The MTV9-260-29 is an airshow-only prop that is not suited for 90% of
the types of flying done by Yak 52 pilots. I am satisfied with my
MTV9-260-29 for my application. It allows me to do things that can
not be done with any other prop. But you pay a price for this
extreme. The high static thrust comes with a loss of max and cruise
speeds. It also gives a crazy power off glide ratio that makes for
some exciting air show antics. A well known MT dealer promised that
his tests showed the MTV9-260-29 prop did everything well. Imagine that.
I was so impressed by the performance of the GT prop
when compared with the original V530 blades, that I suggested to GT
that I would sell them in the US. They have built a prop using the
same construction techniques for a Spitfire Mk IX with 1700hp. The
GT blades allow the Spitfire to remove manifold pressure limitations
of all past designs and have been pull tested to prove their
strength. This suggests that GT has the know how to build a prop
that is strong enough for the M14P application. I hope that
certification is achieved soon as scientifically done performance
testing has been very convincing in GT's favor. I will look forward
to seeing more testing done by others to compare the GT 250cm with
the current MTV9 model offered for Yak52 V530 replacement.
Rick Volker
On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Richard Goode wrote:
> I am disappointed by the lack of objectivity in Rick Volker's
> posting. Before anything else, and before I am accused of bias,
> could I make the following clear.
> I am a MT agent and sell a large number of MT propellers for a
> variety of applications.
> In Europe we have a significant problem of propellers, since MT,
> while excellent are expensive, and we can ONLY use certificated
> propellers. With ground strikes; old age etc we are running out
> of blades for our V-530s, and there simply are no other substitutes
> we can use.
> I have been a keen supporter of GT Propellers, and indeed am
> currently assisting them to get full European certification with
> EASA (our overall aviation controlling body)
> I have always been concerned about the safety of propellers. Some
> years ago I had a major failure on a propeller (not V-530/MT!)
> which was very nearly disastrous, and this is a fundamental reason
> why I am very careful about the propellers behind which I will fly,
> and which propellers I will recommend. There have been a number
> of high-profile propeller failures of non-certificated props, and,
> in my view, until a propeller has been properly tested AND
> certificated, I believe that any purchaser should tread very
> carefully.
> To deal with the statistical evidence, I re-emphasise that I am
> very keen for the GT propellers to perform well against the more
> established props. Having said that I have been involved in
> extensive propeller trials, and I have concerns about the following
> issues:
> Ricks figures are a single figure for each propeller and each
> perameter. For properly objective tests you need to run each
> perameter at least three times.
> they are not mentioned so possibly he did them, but I doubt if
> there were proper corrections for temperature and pressure changes,
> which make a huge difference to these things. I am very aware of
> how long it takes to contact these tests, and things can change
> quite rapidly, particularly during the time that it takes to change
> from one propeller to another.
> Aircraft weights need to be exactly identical - it is all too easy
> to contact one test; fly again, without precisely filling fuel and
> oil to the same level.
> Rick refers to "more static thrust" - I do not see any figures, so
> wonder whether these were properly measured.
> Rick refers to "dynamically balanced", but clearly these props are
> being removed and put back on again, in which case the dynamic
> balance will certainly be lost. IF these propellers were not
> being immediately put on, then how long and over what period were
> the tests being conducted, and certainly if time has been taken to
> re-dynamically balance each propeller, then there must have been
> climatic changes.
> It is also slightly misleading to refer to the MTV3 propeller -
> this is an old design, long out of production, and only likely to
> be available second hand.
> For pricing, Rick is somewhat misleading to suggest that the GT
> propeller is half the price of MT. He gives a price of US $8,428,
> but this is only for two GT propeller blades. The current list
> price for a complete MTV-9-250 or 260 is US $15,600. This is of
> course for a factory new propeller, absolutely complete, whereas
> the GT price of US $8,428 is simply for two blades, so you then
> need to get a hub; overhaul it; install the blades; balance etc.
> So to conclude, I am very much a supporter of GT propeller, and I
> am hoping that we are able to obtain full certification for their
> blades. BUT any performance / cost comparisons between propellers
> MUST be done scientifically and objectively!
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Herefordshire
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340 120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340 129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs |
Good answer...
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Rick VOLKER wrote:
> In reading my original prop comparison post, you will notice my
> "for more information, contact:". I chose not to display all
> information due to quantity, hoping any interested parties would
> contact me for the details. Let me fill you in:
>
> On September 11,2009 at KIAG airport;
> Flight one-1300 local time: MTV3. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> 778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight with
> test average noted.
> Flight two-1430 local time: V530. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> unchanged at 778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute
> flight with test average noted.
> Flight three-1630 local time: GT 250 cm blades on V530 hub. SU26M,
> full fuel. Density altitude 774'. Each test repeated three times
> during 25 minute flight with test average noted.
>
> On September 15,2009 at KIAG airport:
> Flight one-1130 local time:MTV9. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> 1037'. Altitude for tests changed to adjust for different density
> altitude. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight
> with test average noted.
>
> Note;
> -Aircraft weight was identical for each flight. Oil and fuel were
> exactly the same. The Profile for each flight was identical so that
> the weight of the aircraft would be identical for each part of the
> flight compared. Weather data can be confirmed via online sources.
> -Static thrust was not directly measured, however stall speed tests
> under full power with this weight aircraft allowed gross comparisons
> of relative thrust at close to zero airspeed. Differences between
> aircraft were marked and statistically significant.
> -The MTV9 was dynamic balanced on this aircraft before flight. Other
> props were not. I agree that dynamic balance performed on other
> aircraft are next to useless. Dynamic balance of V530 prop is more
> difficult on Yak 52 because of the proximity of blade to the ground
> allowing buffeting to limit ground run rpm and the lack of a spinner
> backplate for fine tuning.
>
> The purpose of my post was to alert Yak 52 owners to a
> good alternative to MT if the original V530 blades must be replaced
> or if performance enhancements are desired. The price is not so
> expensive if you already have a good V530 hub. The MTV3 and
> MTV9-260-29 were owned by me and do not represent all of the choices
> in selecting a new MT prop.
> My experience with MT has been mixed. A new MTV9-260-29
> prop was so rough in flight that MT eventually sent me a new set of
> blades that corrected the problem, after 3 dynamic balance attempts
> with 2 complete tear-downs/inspections in between. But this all took
> one year. They do not yet know what was wrong with the original new
> blades. I had to find other props to get me through my air show
> season. MT did not have a loaner. I had a spare MTV3. GT Propellers
> also offered to loan me their blades for a spare V530 hub that I
> owned. A friend with a Yak 52 offered me a 20 hr TT V530. I
> compared them out of curiosity. It would have been much better to
> have an MTV9 of the proper length and type blade design with a Yak
> 52 to compare. The MTV3 has been around and many M14P pilots are
> familiar with them. The MTV9-260-29 is an airshow-only prop that is
> not suited for 90% of the types of flying done by Yak 52 pilots. I
> am satisfied with my MTV9-260-29 for my application. It allows me to
> do things that can not be done with any other prop. But you pay a
> price for this extreme. The high static thrust comes with a loss of
> max and cruise speeds. It also gives a crazy power off glide ratio
> that makes for some exciting air show antics. A well known MT
> dealer promised that his tests showed the MTV9-260-29 prop did
> everything well. Imagine that.
> I was so impressed by the performance of the GT prop
> when compared with the original V530 blades, that I suggested to GT
> that I would sell them in the US. They have built a prop using the
> same construction techniques for a Spitfire Mk IX with 1700hp. The
> GT blades allow the Spitfire to remove manifold pressure limitations
> of all past designs and have been pull tested to prove their
> strength. This suggests that GT has the know how to build a prop
> that is strong enough for the M14P application. I hope that
> certification is achieved soon as scientifically done performance
> testing has been very convincing in GT's favor. I will look forward
> to seeing more testing done by others to compare the GT 250cm with
> the current MTV9 model offered for Yak52 V530 replacement.
>
> Rick Volker
>
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Richard Goode wrote:
>
>> I am disappointed by the lack of objectivity in Rick Volker's
>> posting. Before anything else, and before I am accused of bias,
>> could I make the following clear.
>> I am a MT agent and sell a large number of MT propellers for a
>> variety of applications.
>> In Europe we have a significant problem of propellers, since MT,
>> while excellent are expensive, and we can ONLY use certificated
>> propellers. With ground strikes; old age etc we are running out
>> of blades for our V-530s, and there simply are no other substitutes
>> we can use.
>> I have been a keen supporter of GT Propellers, and indeed am
>> currently assisting them to get full European certification with
>> EASA (our overall aviation controlling body)
>> I have always been concerned about the safety of propellers. Some
>> years ago I had a major failure on a propeller (not V-530/MT!)
>> which was very nearly disastrous, and this is a fundamental reason
>> why I am very careful about the propellers behind which I will fly,
>> and which propellers I will recommend. There have been a number
>> of high-profile propeller failures of non-certificated props, and,
>> in my view, until a propeller has been properly tested AND
>> certificated, I believe that any purchaser should tread very
>> carefully.
>> To deal with the statistical evidence, I re-emphasise that I am
>> very keen for the GT propellers to perform well against the more
>> established props. Having said that I have been involved in
>> extensive propeller trials, and I have concerns about the following
>> issues:
>> Ricks figures are a single figure for each propeller and each
>> perameter. For properly objective tests you need to run each
>> perameter at least three times.
>> they are not mentioned so possibly he did them, but I doubt if
>> there were proper corrections for temperature and pressure changes,
>> which make a huge difference to these things. I am very aware of
>> how long it takes to contact these tests, and things can change
>> quite rapidly, particularly during the time that it takes to change
>> from one propeller to another.
>> Aircraft weights need to be exactly identical - it is all too easy
>> to contact one test; fly again, without precisely filling fuel and
>> oil to the same level.
>> Rick refers to "more static thrust" - I do not see any figures, so
>> wonder whether these were properly measured.
>> Rick refers to "dynamically balanced", but clearly these props are
>> being removed and put back on again, in which case the dynamic
>> balance will certainly be lost. IF these propellers were not
>> being immediately put on, then how long and over what period were
>> the tests being conducted, and certainly if time has been taken to
>> re-dynamically balance each propeller, then there must have been
>> climatic changes.
>> It is also slightly misleading to refer to the MTV3 propeller -
>> this is an old design, long out of production, and only likely to
>> be available second hand.
>> For pricing, Rick is somewhat misleading to suggest that the GT
>> propeller is half the price of MT. He gives a price of US $8,428,
>> but this is only for two GT propeller blades. The current list
>> price for a complete MTV-9-250 or 260 is US $15,600. This is of
>> course for a factory new propeller, absolutely complete, whereas
>> the GT price of US $8,428 is simply for two blades, so you then
>> need to get a hub; overhaul it; install the blades; balance etc.
>> So to conclude, I am very much a supporter of GT propeller, and I
>> am hoping that we are able to obtain full certification for their
>> blades. BUT any performance / cost comparisons between propellers
>> MUST be done scientifically and objectively!
>>
>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>> Rhodds Farm
>> Lyonshall
>> Herefordshire
>> HR5 3LW
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340 120
>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340 129
>> www.russianaeros.com
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>
>
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: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs |
Rick,
The tests we made on the model 12 with 360hp M14P are as follows:
V530 static thrust 1320 lb (weight is 10lb more that all MT prop with
spinner V530 no spinner)
MTV9-250-27 1500 lb thrust
MTV9-250-29 1575 lb thrust
MTV9-260-29 1525 lb static thrust
M14PF 400hp
MTV9-260-29 1800 to 1825 depending on engine/conditions
Barrett modified M14P to 400+ hp and fuel injection
MTV9-260-29 1825-1850 lb on 3 engines thus far
V530 the slowest overall at given power settings up to and including
full throttle level flight. 260 about 5 mph slower than 250 MT prop
on a 360 hp engine. A 260-29 on a BPE equipped model 12 was right at
10mph faster than a 360hp 250-29 model 12 at wide open. The BPE with
260 prop airplane burned about 4 less gallons of gas during a 30
minute flight than the stock 360hp/250 prop model 12.
V530 with it's square planform beat the living $h?t out of the fabric
on the wings of the model 12 like it does to the tail on Yaks. The MT
does not and this is a consideration as the a recover cost for a model
12 is in the $50k + range and up as the paint schemes become more and
more complicated. We found on a few V530 props we have been around
that the blades tended to wonder on pitch accuracy between the 2
blades. I don't know if this is from the blades or from the pitch
control stuff inside. But, it added to the shake and if this is an
issue with the 530 prop hub/system, the problem will most likely
remain with the GT blades installed. Maybe the ones around this part
of the country were not set up properly or were crap units. Just our
experience.
For the model 12, the 530 or 530 with WW or GT blades in it is less
desirable due to the lesser overall acro and speed performance shown,
lack of an attractive spinner, out of production, and heavier than the
MT series.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kimball, Vice President
Jim Kimball Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 849
5354 Cemetery Road
Zellwood, FL 32798-0849
407.889.3451 phone
407.889.7168 fax
www.pittsmodel12.com
www.jimkimballenterprises.com
Email: Kevin@jimkimballenterprises.com
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Rick VOLKER wrote:
> In reading my original prop comparison post, you will notice my
> "for more information, contact:". I chose not to display all
> information due to quantity, hoping any interested parties would
> contact me for the details. Let me fill you in:
>
> On September 11,2009 at KIAG airport;
> Flight one-1300 local time: MTV3. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> 778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight with
> test average noted.
> Flight two-1430 local time: V530. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> unchanged at 778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute
> flight with test average noted.
> Flight three-1630 local time: GT 250 cm blades on V530 hub. SU26M,
> full fuel. Density altitude 774'. Each test repeated three times
> during 25 minute flight with test average noted.
>
> On September 15,2009 at KIAG airport:
> Flight one-1130 local time:MTV9. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> 1037'. Altitude for tests changed to adjust for different density
> altitude. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight
> with test average noted.
>
> Note;
> -Aircraft weight was identical for each flight. Oil and fuel were
> exactly the same. The Profile for each flight was identical so that
> the weight of the aircraft would be identical for each part of the
> flight compared. Weather data can be confirmed via online sources.
> -Static thrust was not directly measured, however stall speed tests
> under full power with this weight aircraft allowed gross comparisons
> of relative thrust at close to zero airspeed. Differences between
> aircraft were marked and statistically significant.
> -The MTV9 was dynamic balanced on this aircraft before flight. Other
> props were not. I agree that dynamic balance performed on other
> aircraft are next to useless. Dynamic balance of V530 prop is more
> difficult on Yak 52 because of the proximity of blade to the ground
> allowing buffeting to limit ground run rpm and the lack of a spinner
> backplate for fine tuning.
>
> The purpose of my post was to alert Yak 52 owners to a
> good alternative to MT if the original V530 blades must be replaced
> or if performance enhancements are desired. The price is not so
> expensive if you already have a good V530 hub. The MTV3 and
> MTV9-260-29 were owned by me and do not represent all of the choices
> in selecting a new MT prop.
> My experience with MT has been mixed. A new MTV9-260-29
> prop was so rough in flight that MT eventually sent me a new set of
> blades that corrected the problem, after 3 dynamic balance attempts
> with 2 complete tear-downs/inspections in between. But this all took
> one year. They do not yet know what was wrong with the original new
> blades. I had to find other props to get me through my air show
> season. MT did not have a loaner. I had a spare MTV3. GT Propellers
> also offered to loan me their blades for a spare V530 hub that I
> owned. A friend with a Yak 52 offered me a 20 hr TT V530. I
> compared them out of curiosity. It would have been much better to
> have an MTV9 of the proper length and type blade design with a Yak
> 52 to compare. The MTV3 has been around and many M14P pilots are
> familiar with them. The MTV9-260-29 is an airshow-only prop that is
> not suited for 90% of the types of flying done by Yak 52 pilots. I
> am satisfied with my MTV9-260-29 for my application. It allows me to
> do things that can not be done with any other prop. But you pay a
> price for this extreme. The high static thrust comes with a loss of
> max and cruise speeds. It also gives a crazy power off glide ratio
> that makes for some exciting air show antics. A well known MT
> dealer promised that his tests showed the MTV9-260-29 prop did
> everything well. Imagine that.
> I was so impressed by the performance of the GT prop
> when compared with the original V530 blades, that I suggested to GT
> that I would sell them in the US. They have built a prop using the
> same construction techniques for a Spitfire Mk IX with 1700hp. The
> GT blades allow the Spitfire to remove manifold pressure limitations
> of all past designs and have been pull tested to prove their
> strength. This suggests that GT has the know how to build a prop
> that is strong enough for the M14P application. I hope that
> certification is achieved soon as scientifically done performance
> testing has been very convincing in GT's favor. I will look forward
> to seeing more testing done by others to compare the GT 250cm with
> the current MTV9 model offered for Yak52 V530 replacement.
>
> Rick Volker
>
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Richard Goode wrote:
>
>> I am disappointed by the lack of objectivity in Rick Volker's
>> posting. Before anything else, and before I am accused of bias,
>> could I make the following clear.
>> I am a MT agent and sell a large number of MT propellers for a
>> variety of applications.
>> In Europe we have a significant problem of propellers, since MT,
>> while excellent are expensive, and we can ONLY use certificated
>> propellers. With ground strikes; old age etc we are running out
>> of blades for our V-530s, and there simply are no other substitutes
>> we can use.
>> I have been a keen supporter of GT Propellers, and indeed am
>> currently assisting them to get full European certification with
>> EASA (our overall aviation controlling body)
>> I have always been concerned about the safety of propellers. Some
>> years ago I had a major failure on a propeller (not V-530/MT!)
>> which was very nearly disastrous, and this is a fundamental reason
>> why I am very careful about the propellers behind which I will fly,
>> and which propellers I will recommend. There have been a number
>> of high-profile propeller failures of non-certificated props, and,
>> in my view, until a propeller has been properly tested AND
>> certificated, I believe that any purchaser should tread very
>> carefully.
>> To deal with the statistical evidence, I re-emphasise that I am
>> very keen for the GT propellers to perform well against the more
>> established props. Having said that I have been involved in
>> extensive propeller trials, and I have concerns about the following
>> issues:
>> Ricks figures are a single figure for each propeller and each
>> perameter. For properly objective tests you need to run each
>> perameter at least three times.
>> they are not mentioned so possibly he did them, but I doubt if
>> there were proper corrections for temperature and pressure changes,
>> which make a huge difference to these things. I am very aware of
>> how long it takes to contact these tests, and things can change
>> quite rapidly, particularly during the time that it takes to change
>> from one propeller to another.
>> Aircraft weights need to be exactly identical - it is all too easy
>> to contact one test; fly again, without precisely filling fuel and
>> oil to the same level.
>> Rick refers to "more static thrust" - I do not see any figures, so
>> wonder whether these were properly measured.
>> Rick refers to "dynamically balanced", but clearly these props are
>> being removed and put back on again, in which case the dynamic
>> balance will certainly be lost. IF these propellers were not
>> being immediately put on, then how long and over what period were
>> the tests being conducted, and certainly if time has been taken to
>> re-dynamically balance each propeller, then there must have been
>> climatic changes.
>> It is also slightly misleading to refer to the MTV3 propeller -
>> this is an old design, long out of production, and only likely to
>> be available second hand.
>> For pricing, Rick is somewhat misleading to suggest that the GT
>> propeller is half the price of MT. He gives a price of US $8,428,
>> but this is only for two GT propeller blades. The current list
>> price for a complete MTV-9-250 or 260 is US $15,600. This is of
>> course for a factory new propeller, absolutely complete, whereas
>> the GT price of US $8,428 is simply for two blades, so you then
>> need to get a hub; overhaul it; install the blades; balance etc.
>> So to conclude, I am very much a supporter of GT propeller, and I
>> am hoping that we are able to obtain full certification for their
>> blades. BUT any performance / cost comparisons between propellers
>> MUST be done scientifically and objectively!
>>
>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>> Rhodds Farm
>> Lyonshall
>> Herefordshire
>> HR5 3LW
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340 120
>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340 129
>> www.russianaeros.com
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GT propeller blades on V530 hubs |
Rick,
A follow up question or two.
Which prop do you chose to fly on your Sukhoi and why? What are the
most important factors for you in prop selection for your M14P powered
airplanes?
For us as used on the model 12, the key selection factors are:
Availability new, service, spinner choice, colors, appearance and most
important, overall performance on our airplane.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kimball, Vice President
Jim Kimball Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 849
5354 Cemetery Road
Zellwood, FL 32798-0849
407.889.3451 phone
407.889.7168 fax
www.pittsmodel12.com
www.jimkimballenterprises.com
Email: Kevin@jimkimballenterprises.com
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Rick VOLKER wrote:
> In reading my original prop comparison post, you will notice my
> "for more information, contact:". I chose not to display all
> information due to quantity, hoping any interested parties would
> contact me for the details. Let me fill you in:
>
> On September 11,2009 at KIAG airport;
> Flight one-1300 local time: MTV3. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> 778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight with
> test average noted.
> Flight two-1430 local time: V530. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> unchanged at 778'. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute
> flight with test average noted.
> Flight three-1630 local time: GT 250 cm blades on V530 hub. SU26M,
> full fuel. Density altitude 774'. Each test repeated three times
> during 25 minute flight with test average noted.
>
> On September 15,2009 at KIAG airport:
> Flight one-1130 local time:MTV9. SU26M, full fuel. Density altitude
> 1037'. Altitude for tests changed to adjust for different density
> altitude. Each test repeated three times during 25 minute flight
> with test average noted.
>
> Note;
> -Aircraft weight was identical for each flight. Oil and fuel were
> exactly the same. The Profile for each flight was identical so that
> the weight of the aircraft would be identical for each part of the
> flight compared. Weather data can be confirmed via online sources.
> -Static thrust was not directly measured, however stall speed tests
> under full power with this weight aircraft allowed gross comparisons
> of relative thrust at close to zero airspeed. Differences between
> aircraft were marked and statistically significant.
> -The MTV9 was dynamic balanced on this aircraft before flight. Other
> props were not. I agree that dynamic balance performed on other
> aircraft are next to useless. Dynamic balance of V530 prop is more
> difficult on Yak 52 because of the proximity of blade to the ground
> allowing buffeting to limit ground run rpm and the lack of a spinner
> backplate for fine tuning.
>
> The purpose of my post was to alert Yak 52 owners to a
> good alternative to MT if the original V530 blades must be replaced
> or if performance enhancements are desired. The price is not so
> expensive if you already have a good V530 hub. The MTV3 and
> MTV9-260-29 were owned by me and do not represent all of the choices
> in selecting a new MT prop.
> My experience with MT has been mixed. A new MTV9-260-29
> prop was so rough in flight that MT eventually sent me a new set of
> blades that corrected the problem, after 3 dynamic balance attempts
> with 2 complete tear-downs/inspections in between. But this all took
> one year. They do not yet know what was wrong with the original new
> blades. I had to find other props to get me through my air show
> season. MT did not have a loaner. I had a spare MTV3. GT Propellers
> also offered to loan me their blades for a spare V530 hub that I
> owned. A friend with a Yak 52 offered me a 20 hr TT V530. I
> compared them out of curiosity. It would have been much better to
> have an MTV9 of the proper length and type blade design with a Yak
> 52 to compare. The MTV3 has been around and many M14P pilots are
> familiar with them. The MTV9-260-29 is an airshow-only prop that is
> not suited for 90% of the types of flying done by Yak 52 pilots. I
> am satisfied with my MTV9-260-29 for my application. It allows me to
> do things that can not be done with any other prop. But you pay a
> price for this extreme. The high static thrust comes with a loss of
> max and cruise speeds. It also gives a crazy power off glide ratio
> that makes for some exciting air show antics. A well known MT
> dealer promised that his tests showed the MTV9-260-29 prop did
> everything well. Imagine that.
> I was so impressed by the performance of the GT prop
> when compared with the original V530 blades, that I suggested to GT
> that I would sell them in the US. They have built a prop using the
> same construction techniques for a Spitfire Mk IX with 1700hp. The
> GT blades allow the Spitfire to remove manifold pressure limitations
> of all past designs and have been pull tested to prove their
> strength. This suggests that GT has the know how to build a prop
> that is strong enough for the M14P application. I hope that
> certification is achieved soon as scientifically done performance
> testing has been very convincing in GT's favor. I will look forward
> to seeing more testing done by others to compare the GT 250cm with
> the current MTV9 model offered for Yak52 V530 replacement.
>
> Rick Volker
>
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Richard Goode wrote:
>
>> I am disappointed by the lack of objectivity in Rick Volker's
>> posting. Before anything else, and before I am accused of bias,
>> could I make the following clear.
>> I am a MT agent and sell a large number of MT propellers for a
>> variety of applications.
>> In Europe we have a significant problem of propellers, since MT,
>> while excellent are expensive, and we can ONLY use certificated
>> propellers. With ground strikes; old age etc we are running out
>> of blades for our V-530s, and there simply are no other substitutes
>> we can use.
>> I have been a keen supporter of GT Propellers, and indeed am
>> currently assisting them to get full European certification with
>> EASA (our overall aviation controlling body)
>> I have always been concerned about the safety of propellers. Some
>> years ago I had a major failure on a propeller (not V-530/MT!)
>> which was very nearly disastrous, and this is a fundamental reason
>> why I am very careful about the propellers behind which I will fly,
>> and which propellers I will recommend. There have been a number
>> of high-profile propeller failures of non-certificated props, and,
>> in my view, until a propeller has been properly tested AND
>> certificated, I believe that any purchaser should tread very
>> carefully.
>> To deal with the statistical evidence, I re-emphasise that I am
>> very keen for the GT propellers to perform well against the more
>> established props. Having said that I have been involved in
>> extensive propeller trials, and I have concerns about the following
>> issues:
>> Ricks figures are a single figure for each propeller and each
>> perameter. For properly objective tests you need to run each
>> perameter at least three times.
>> they are not mentioned so possibly he did them, but I doubt if
>> there were proper corrections for temperature and pressure changes,
>> which make a huge difference to these things. I am very aware of
>> how long it takes to contact these tests, and things can change
>> quite rapidly, particularly during the time that it takes to change
>> from one propeller to another.
>> Aircraft weights need to be exactly identical - it is all too easy
>> to contact one test; fly again, without precisely filling fuel and
>> oil to the same level.
>> Rick refers to "more static thrust" - I do not see any figures, so
>> wonder whether these were properly measured.
>> Rick refers to "dynamically balanced", but clearly these props are
>> being removed and put back on again, in which case the dynamic
>> balance will certainly be lost. IF these propellers were not
>> being immediately put on, then how long and over what period were
>> the tests being conducted, and certainly if time has been taken to
>> re-dynamically balance each propeller, then there must have been
>> climatic changes.
>> It is also slightly misleading to refer to the MTV3 propeller -
>> this is an old design, long out of production, and only likely to
>> be available second hand.
>> For pricing, Rick is somewhat misleading to suggest that the GT
>> propeller is half the price of MT. He gives a price of US $8,428,
>> but this is only for two GT propeller blades. The current list
>> price for a complete MTV-9-250 or 260 is US $15,600. This is of
>> course for a factory new propeller, absolutely complete, whereas
>> the GT price of US $8,428 is simply for two blades, so you then
>> need to get a hub; overhaul it; install the blades; balance etc.
>> So to conclude, I am very much a supporter of GT propeller, and I
>> am hoping that we are able to obtain full certification for their
>> blades. BUT any performance / cost comparisons between propellers
>> MUST be done scientifically and objectively!
>>
>> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>> Rhodds Farm
>> Lyonshall
>> Herefordshire
>> HR5 3LW
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340 120
>> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340 129
>> www.russianaeros.com
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>
>
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! --
|