Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:47 AM - Re: Bill Blackwell (cjpilot710@aol.com)
2. 07:46 AM - Re: Power (cjpilot710@aol.com)
3. 08:22 AM - Re: Bill Blackwell (doug sapp)
4. 01:35 PM - Surprised to see a crated Nanchang today (Pete Fowler)
5. 01:42 PM - How old is too old? (Pete Fowler)
6. 08:02 PM - Re: Power (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
7. 08:36 PM - Re: Power (Kevin Kimball)
8. 10:35 PM - Power (cjpilot710@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bill Blackwell |
bill@blackwellredstar.com,
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Wise <wise@txc.net.au>
Sent: Sat, Apr 24, 2010 12:13 am
Subject: Yak-List: Bill Blackwell
G'Day,
Can someone please advise how to contact bill Blackwell on email.
Thanks and cheers,
Chris.
Chris Wise
GT Propellers Australia
__________________________________________________________
Tel. +61 415 195 095 Fax. +61 8 8326 7268
Email chris@gtpropellersaustralia.com.au
Website www.gtpropellersaustralia.com.au
The information transmitted in and with this email is intended only for th
e person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information,
by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited.
If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and
delete this e-mail and associated material from all computers and/or syst
ems. The intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclo
se or distribute the information contained in this e-mail and any attached
files, with the permission of the sender.
========================
===========
-= - 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 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 |
|
Richard,
I do not disagree on a proper calibrated dynamometer test for engine power
. To me however the final product is a measurable thrust. I agree that
propeller efficiency would be the biggest factor on converting HP into th
rust and you and I have seen a palfrey of props for the M-14 playing for
just that aspect.
Once upon a time and far away, in the early days of the 707 power was meas
ured in EPR (exhaust pressure ratio). As a co-pilot I had to sit (no crew
concept back than) and listen to some captains expound that the engineers
didn't know a hill of beans and that the EPR gage was obviously a poor de
sign for figuring power. Their arguments were 'just look at the fuel flow
gage' or ' line up the EGTs, that'll give you the same power across the
wing'. Or my personal favorite ' adjust the throttle so that the fuel to
talizers read the same'. I saw many a professional flight engineer in tea
rs trying to over come those concepts.
The reason EPR were so important on the 707 was in trimming up the airplan
e which had a very real effect on fuel burn. Get the power squared out ac
ross the wing (yaw) than roll and rudder trim can be squared away with min
ima displacement. Next came the stabilizer adjustment which needed consta
nt adjustment with fuel burn off.
In the end what we were only concern about was what thrust we were putting
out. Some engine (low time ones) would have lower fuel flows and lower
EGTs than an engine next to it on the same wing, that might be sucking a
little more Kero and warmer, but they both had the same EPR setting. The
over all trim of the airplane was more important gas wise.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:52 am
Subject: Yak-List: Power
There is only one way to measure power,and that is on a proper,callibrated
dynonometer,corrected for temprature and pressure.
Our engine partner in Hungary has developed a clever system of a strain-ga
uge between engine and and prop which gives a continuous read-out of torqu
e,so easily convertable to power while the engine is running-but only on
the ground.
I'm happy to send photos to anyone interested in this.
We believe that it is accurate within 2%,when compared with dyno readings,
but rather more scientific than a belief that some modification is worth
10%!!.
Thrust is fine to an extent,but can only give a relative figure since it
depends on the efficiency of the prop.
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
========================
===========
-= - 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 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bill Blackwell |
This should do it.
Doug
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Chris Wise <wise@txc.net.au> wrote:
> G'Day,
> Can someone please advise how to contact bill Blackwell on email.
>
> Thanks and cheers,
> Chris.
>
>
> Chris Wise
> GT Propellers Australia
> __________________________________________________________
> Tel. +61 415 195 095 Fax. +61 8 8326 7268
>
> Email chris@gtpropellersaustralia.com.au
> Website www.gtpropellersaustralia.com.au
>
> The information transmitted in and with this email is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by
> persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited. If you
> received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and delete
> this e-mail and associated material from all computers and/or systems. The
> intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclose or
> distribute the information contained in this e-mail and any attached files,
> with the permission of the sender.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | Surprised to see a crated Nanchang today |
Apparently a Chinese guy in Torrance has had this plane in a warehouse for 10 years.
They moved it to Torrance today. I tried to encourage the guys who moved
it (who were talking about putting it together) to contact the brain trust.
Fascinating seeing a fresh off-the-boat one. It looked to be in excellent original
condition.
It had a long pitot tube and four digit code numbers on the tail. They had no idea
what year it was.
--------
N4183E
http://nanchangcjs.yuku.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295570#295570
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fobchang_945.jpg
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: | How old is too old? |
While working on my plane at Santa Paula, one of the many A&Ps there happened by
and was looking at my fuselage and said "wow, that plane must have been overstressed
at some point". We sort of ignored that but since then I've noticed that
my fuselage skins are more "wrinkly" from behind the back seat to the tail.
Compared to the "Fresh Off Boat" one I saw today, that one had nearly perfectly
smooth fuselage skins.
My plane is one of the first CJ-6s imported into the U.S. in 1991 and had an estimated
3500 hours when imported so now has something like 4900 hours on the airframe.
I know that's nothing compared to most other planes but since it appears
to be the (or one of the) highest hour planes around, it made me think.
Am I the "guinea pig" for Nanchang hours? How would I determine if the wrinkly
skins are "normal"? The local Nanchang guys don't think anything of it but what
do you guys think?
--------
N4183E
http://nanchangcjs.yuku.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295571#295571
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 |
|
Pappy, I am going to weigh in on this one too and say that I agree with Richard.
Engines are measured in horsepower and torque. Period. No matter what they
hook to, whether it be a prop, or a driveshaft, they are measured with a dynamometer,
or "dyno" for short. This includes most every engine ever developed
including the WW-II radials you fly behind yourself.
Measuring thrust does indeed give relative performance indications. Relative,
but not specific. If you are measuring horsepower, you need a dyno, and that
is really all there is to that and I can't imagine how anyone could disagree.
Comparing thrust readings does give some indication of performance DIFFERENCES,
but prop design has a MASSIVE influence on this kind of measurement.
Moving the discussion to jet engines is comparing apples to oranges. Piston engines
have pretty much ALWAYS been rated in torque and horsepower. Jet engines
have been measured in thrust.
Indeed the final answer in an airplane might be considered to be thrust, but typically
a design engineer will match the prop to engine horsepower and torque
and engine RPM, and sometimes even that fails and many attempts are made to get
a good match between engine and prop. We've seen that ourselves with various
props that have been bolted to the M-14!
By the way, EPR is still used. On the EA-6B using J-52P408's we still take N1
and N2 readings and do the math to display the raw data to the aircrew. And yes,
all your statements about pilots equalizing fuel flow, EGT's, RPM, (you name
it) are also true for our particular military members as well, which is why
we computerized the EPR readout and made it more reliable. You again are also
correct that different engines with different "numbers" (turbines) can put
out the same EPR, mostly due to the way the engines were "trimmed" when in the
engine test cell. Most of our engines are indeed trimmed to present the same
EPR, even though fuel flow and EGT might be slightly different.
But this really comes back to the fact that we are not talking about turbines here,
but in fact piston engines with a crankshaft, and engines of that type are
rated by HP and torque and these numbers are developed by a dyno. But just
to make things more complicated, just what is a "dyno" really?
With the prop connected to the output shaft of the M-14, we are putting a load
on the engine and then trying to achieve thrust by moving air. We measure how
hard we are "pulling" with a strain gage. This we call "thrust". But in reality,
the engine is kept at a certain RPM by varying the pitch of the prop, so
as to put exactly enough load on the engine to keep it from increasing in RPM.
We all agree on this correct? We can also agree that the pitch of the prop
is NOT under our control. It is under AUTOMATIC control. The only thing WE
control is the engine RPM!
With a dyno, we really do almost exactly the same thing. We put a load on the
engine. With a modern dyno, this load is variable and computer controlled. So
is the throttle (as compared to older manually controlled models). Very accurate
measurements are taken to determine air density. The computer runs the
engine up to full power, and torque is measured as well as the load being applied.
The engine is allowed to go to a pre-determined RPM, again controlled by
a computer. The end result is accurate numbers across the whole RANGE that the
engine operates in. Not just full power... but all the way across the whole
RPM range! Every aspect of the engines performance is measured and recorded.
I've been there and done this myself on a number of engines. This is not hear-say
on my part ok?
But my point is simply... in EITHER case we are simply running an engine with a
load on the crank. One is hooked to a prop and we use a strain gage. The other
is hooked to a CALIBRATED load, and gives accurate measurements.
Remember, the statement was: "THIS ENGINE HAS 440 HORSEPOWER". The comment was
not: "THIS ENGINE HAS 200 POUNDS MORE THRUST THAN WHEN WE STARTED".
If Bill Blackwell had an easy way to hook an M-14 to a Dyno, he'd do it. But that
just is not easy. For anyone. Richard included. So we use what we can and
make very rough estimates.
I again would like to ask just exactly what was done to this engine. If that exhaust
system was just slapped on and a 10% increase in HP was claimed, I would
look askance at that. But I think Bill PROBABLY tuned that engine and who knows
what else was done.
Richard: Although I fully agree with you on the dyno issue, I also want to give
a lot of credit to what Pappy is saying Not that I believe that pure prop
thrust is the way to go, but the fact that prop thrust IS a measurement and it
IS increasing. Americans are some of the best in the world at hot rodding an
engine. The Australians are damn good too! Australians and Americans have always
been big fans of drag racing. That said, I've seen ways to get more power
out of piston engines, and Bill is applying these exact same techniques to
what he is doing with the M-14. His valve selection types, his valve seal additions,
gapless rings, piston designs, etc., all add up to a logical approach
to coaxing more power out of the engine, rather than just applying more and more
boost pressure from the supercharger. With a given cam design, equalizing
cylinder power output, lowering and BALANCING exhaust gas flows, increasing
timing, adding more fuel... all add to more power being produced. When fuel injection
is fully realized, it's going to get REALLY interesting... and we all
know everyone is trying their hand at getting THAT to work. In the end, is
this engine putting out 440 HP or 400 HP? No one really knows for sure. But
it sure looks really cool does it not? Regardless, I am just happy that Bill
is working along these lines and we don't have to rely strictly on the Russians
for coming out with higher powered M-14's. We're just very lucky we can do
this under the Experimental rules that the FAA allows us.
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Sat 4/24/2010 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Power
Richard,
I do not disagree on a proper calibrated dynamometer test for engine power. To
me however the final product is a measurable thrust. I agree that propeller
efficiency would be the biggest factor on converting HP into thrust and you and
I have seen a palfrey of props for the M-14 playing for just that aspect.
Once upon a time and far away, in the early days of the 707 power was measured
in EPR (exhaust pressure ratio). As a co-pilot I had to sit (no crew concept
back than) and listen to some captains expound that the engineers didn't know
a hill of beans and that the EPR gage was obviously a poor design for figuring
power. Their arguments were 'just look at the fuel flow gage' or ' line up the
EGTs, that'll give you the same power across the wing'. Or my personal favorite
' adjust the throttle so that the fuel totalizers read the same'. I saw
many a professional flight engineer in tears trying to over come those concepts.
The reason EPR were so important on the 707 was in trimming up the airplane which
had a very real effect on fuel burn. Get the power squared out across the
wing (yaw) than roll and rudder trim can be squared away with minima displacement.
Next came the stabilizer adjustment which needed constant adjustment with
fuel burn off.
In the end what we were only concern about was what thrust we were putting out.
Some engine (low time ones) would have lower fuel flows and lower EGTs than
an engine next to it on the same wing, that might be sucking a little more Kero
and warmer, but they both had the same EPR setting. The over all trim of the
airplane was more important gas wise.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:52 am
Subject: Yak-List: Power
There is only one way to measure power,and that is on a proper,callibrated dynonometer,corrected
for temprature and pressure.
Our engine partner in Hungary has developed a clever system of a strain-gauge between
engine and and prop which gives a continuous read-out of torque,so easily
convertable to power while the engine is running-but only on the ground.
I'm happy to send photos to anyone interested in this.
We believe that it is accurate within 2%,when compared with dyno readings,but rather
more scientific than a belief that some modification is worth 10%!!.
Thrust is fine to an extent,but can only give a relative figure since it depends
on the efficiency of the prop.
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 <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
===================================
get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
===================================
tp://forums.matronics.com
===================================
_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
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 |
|
FYI, Barrett precision engines will have their m14 test cell up and
running thus summer. At that time, there will actually be an accurate
test device in the USA for these engines. Thus device will Allow true
comparing tests of the claims made. It will be easy to test volt on
items to see the actual differences in performance.
Sent from my iPhone
Kevin
On Apr 24, 2010, at 11:01 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Pappy, I am going to weigh in on this one too and say that I agree
> with Richard. Engines are measured in horsepower and torque.
> Period. No matter what they hook to, whether it be a prop, or a
> driveshaft, they are measured with a dynamometer, or "dyno" for
> short. This includes most every engine ever developed including the
> WW-II radials you fly behind yourself.
>
> Measuring thrust does indeed give relative performance indications.
> Relative, but not specific. If you are measuring horsepower, you
> need a dyno, and that is really all there is to that and I can't
> imagine how anyone could disagree.
>
> Comparing thrust readings does give some indication of performance
> DIFFERENCES, but prop design has a MASSIVE influence on this kind of
> measurement.
>
> Moving the discussion to jet engines is comparing apples to
> oranges. Piston engines have pretty much ALWAYS been rated in
> torque and horsepower. Jet engines have been measured in thrust.
>
> Indeed the final answer in an airplane might be considered to be
> thrust, but typically a design engineer will match the prop to
> engine horsepower and torque and engine RPM, and sometimes even that
> fails and many attempts are made to get a good match between engine
> and prop. We've seen that ourselves with various props that have
> been bolted to the M-14!
>
> By the way, EPR is still used. On the EA-6B using J-52P408's we
> still take N1 and N2 readings and do the math to display the raw
> data to the aircrew. And yes, all your statements about pilots
> equalizing fuel flow, EGT's, RPM, (you name it) are also true for
> our particular military members as well, which is why we
> computerized the EPR readout and made it more reliable. You again
> are also correct that different engines with different
> "numbers" (turbines) can put out the same EPR, mostly due to the way
> the engines were "trimmed" when in the engine test cell. Most of
> our engines are indeed trimmed to present the same EPR, even though
> fuel flow and EGT might be slightly different.
>
> But this really comes back to the fact that we are not talking about
> turbines here, but in fact piston engines with a crankshaft, and
> engines of that type are rated by HP and torque and these numbers
> are developed by a dyno. But just to make things more complicated,
> just what is a "dyno" really?
>
> With the prop connected to the output shaft of the M-14, we are
> putting a load on the engine and then trying to achieve thrust by
> moving air. We measure how hard we are "pulling" with a strain
> gage. This we call "thrust". But in reality, the engine is kept
> at a certain RPM by varying the pitch of the prop, so as to put
> exactly enough load on the engine to keep it from increasing in
> RPM. We all agree on this correct? We can also agree that the
> pitch of the prop is NOT under our control. It is under AUTOMATIC
> control. The only thing WE control is the engine RPM!
>
> With a dyno, we really do almost exactly the same thing. We put a
> load on the engine. With a modern dyno, this load is variable and
> computer controlled. So is the throttle (as compared to older
> manually controlled models). Very accurate measurements are taken
> to determine air density. The computer runs the engine up to full
> power, and torque is measured as well as the load being applied.
> The engine is allowed to go to a pre-determined RPM, again
> controlled by a computer. The end result is accurate numbers across
> the whole RANGE that the engine operates in. Not just full power...
> but all the way across the whole RPM range! Every aspect of the
> engines performance is measured and recorded. I've been there and
> done this myself on a number of engines. This is not hear-say on my
> part ok?
>
> But my point is simply... in EITHER case we are simply running an
> engine with a load on the crank. One is hooked to a prop and we use
> a strain gage. The other is hooked to a CALIBRATED load, and gives
> accurate measurements.
>
> Remember, the statement was: "THIS ENGINE HAS 440 HORSEPOWER".
> The comment was not: "THIS ENGINE HAS 200 POUNDS MORE THRUST THAN
> WHEN WE STARTED".
>
> If Bill Blackwell had an easy way to hook an M-14 to a Dyno, he'd do
> it. But that just is not easy. For anyone. Richard included. So
> we use what we can and make very rough estimates.
>
> I again would like to ask just exactly what was done to this
> engine. If that exhaust system was just slapped on and a 10%
> increase in HP was claimed, I would look askance at that. But I
> think Bill PROBABLY tuned that engine and who knows what else was
> done.
>
> Richard: Although I fully agree with you on the dyno issue, I also
> want to give a lot of credit to what Pappy is saying Not that I
> believe that pure prop thrust is the way to go, but the fact that
> prop thrust IS a measurement and it IS increasing. Americans are
> some of the best in the world at hot rodding an engine. The
> Australians are damn good too! Australians and Americans have
> always been big fans of drag racing. That said, I've seen ways to
> get more power out of piston engines, and Bill is applying these
> exact same techniques to what he is doing with the M-14. His valve
> selection types, his valve seal additions, gapless rings, piston
> designs, etc., all add up to a logical approach to coaxing more
> power out of the engine, rather than just applying more and more
> boost pressure from the supercharger. With a given cam design,
> equalizing cylinder power output, lowering and BALANCING exhaust gas
> flows, increasing timing, adding more fuel... all add to more power
> be!
> ing produced. When fuel injection is fully realized, it's going to
> get REALLY interesting... and we all know everyone is trying their
> hand at getting THAT to work. In the end, is this engine putting
> out 440 HP or 400 HP? No one really knows for sure. But it sure
> looks really cool does it not? Regardless, I am just happy that
> Bill is working along these lines and we don't have to rely strictly
> on the Russians for coming out with higher powered M-14's. We're
> just very lucky we can do this under the Experimental rules that the
> FAA allows us.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of cjpilot710@aol.com
> Sent: Sat 4/24/2010 10:44 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Power
>
>
> Richard,
>
> I do not disagree on a proper calibrated dynamometer test for engine
> power. To me however the final product is a measurable thrust. I
> agree that propeller efficiency would be the biggest factor on
> converting HP into thrust and you and I have seen a palfrey of props
> for the M-14 playing for just that aspect.
>
> Once upon a time and far away, in the early days of the 707 power
> was measured in EPR (exhaust pressure ratio). As a co-pilot I had
> to sit (no crew concept back than) and listen to some captains
> expound that the engineers didn't know a hill of beans and that the
> EPR gage was obviously a poor design for figuring power. Their
> arguments were 'just look at the fuel flow gage' or ' line up the
> EGTs, that'll give you the same power across the wing'. Or my
> personal favorite ' adjust the throttle so that the fuel totalizers
> read the same'. I saw many a professional flight engineer in tears
> trying to over come those concepts.
>
> The reason EPR were so important on the 707 was in trimming up the
> airplane which had a very real effect on fuel burn. Get the power
> squared out across the wing (yaw) than roll and rudder trim can be
> squared away with minima displacement. Next came the stabilizer
> adjustment which needed constant adjustment with fuel burn off.
>
> In the end what we were only concern about was what thrust we were
> putting out. Some engine (low time ones) would have lower fuel
> flows and lower EGTs than an engine next to it on the same wing,
> that might be sucking a little more Kero and warmer, but they both
> had the same EPR setting. The over all trim of the airplane was
> more important gas wise.
>
> Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
> To: YAK USA LIST <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:52 am
> Subject: Yak-List: Power
>
>
> There is only one way to measure power,and that is on a
> proper,callibrated dynonometer,corrected for temprature and pressure.
> Our engine partner in Hungary has developed a clever system of a
> strain-gauge between engine and and prop which gives a continuous
> read-out of torque,so easily convertable to power while the engine
> is running-but only on the ground.
> I'm happy to send photos to anyone interested in this.
> We believe that it is accurate within 2%,when compared with dyno
> readings,but rather more scientific than a belief that some
> modification is worth 10%!!.
> Thrust is fine to an extent,but can only give a relative figure
> since it depends on the efficiency of the prop.
> 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 <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
>
>
> ===================================
> get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> ===================================
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> _blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
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 |
|
With a test cell, will be a great asset, practically if it has something
that can accurately measure power.
Here is a question. I do not have the answer to this and I'm sure I may
be simplifying this big time.
What if we took (say ) a CJ-6 with a straight M-14p (dymo tested at 360hp)
engine and paddle prop.
We (figuratively) tie it to a tree. Than we run the engine full power and
full rpm.
In the tie down line we have a gage that can measure the pull in pounds an
d that pull measured (say) 1,000 lbs.
We than tear down the engine and insert dome pistons.
We than put the engine back on the same airplane and again make a full pow
er run.
This time the gage in the line reads 1,110 pounds in pull. An increase of
110 lbs pull.
If we have 1110/1000, I believe we have a 11.1% increase.
If original engine equaled 360hp, would the new configuration equal 399.96
hp (360+11.1%)?
BTW I was never known as being particularly astute in math.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
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! --
|