Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble (Jan Mevis)
2. 12:48 AM - Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble (Harv)
3. 03:46 AM - Spark plug heat range (Cpayne)
4. 04:23 AM - Re: Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble (A. Dennis Savarese)
5. 06:11 AM - Re: Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble (cjpilot710@aol.com)
6. 06:36 AM - Re: Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble (Roger Kemp M.D.)
7. 06:58 AM - Re: Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble (BKENNAMORE@aol.com)
8. 07:54 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 07/28/12 ()
9. 12:20 PM - My hero (barryhancock)
10. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
11. 07:44 PM - Re: Spark plug heat range (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
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: CJ-6 Engine trouble |
We've had a Yak 52 at our field with a rough running engine. Also filled
up with cargas.
We drained the cargas, and refilled with avgas 100 LL, and the problem was
gone.
Although cargas is often used in Europe (the price difference pays the
engine overhaul after some time =8A) the problem is that you don't know what
the quality is.
Avgas 100 LL has the same quality everywhere.
Jan
From: Thomas McKeon <tmckeon79@hotmail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: CJ-6 Engine trouble
Hello,
I am having some engine trouble and I am hoping your experience can point m
e
in the right direction.
I have a CJ-6 with a Housai 285hp engine. I went to go fly one day and I
started to runup my engine. At low RPM everything seemed fine. Once above
1750 RPM things changed. The RPM needle (Manifold press needle would move
in sequence with RPM) would sporatically jump around. When it would jump
the engine would chug as if it were about to die and then surge to life.
This would happen about every 20 seconds. When I would cycle the Mags the
engine would immediately chug and start to die and would certainly cut off
if I didn't quickly put the mags back to "both". This would happen with
either left or right mag.
I took the plane back to my hangar and looked at a few things. I pulled th
e
fuel filter screen on the lower left of the firewall, it was clean. I
pulled the spark plugs from the bottom cylinders and they were good. (I
just picked up the plane from a full maintenance inspeciton by Jim Selby in
August so everything should be pretty good). Of note, the primer was
locked. I opened the top of the Magnetos with the local maintenance worker
s
at my field and looked for any damage. We didn't notice any. Also of note
,
I have been using Auto gas 87 octane with ethanol. I have been doing this
for about a month. It wasn't until a week ago I found out this was bad and
I was looking forward to burning off all the fuel in my tanks to replace it
with 100LL. But due to this engine problem the tanks are still full of aut
o
gas.
Right now I am guessing it is either fuel related, or ignition related. An
y
advice would be appreciated.
Tom
PS. Previous problems with the pneumatic system have been fixed. Thanks.
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-6 Engine trouble |
Presumably the CJ was running on 100LL (with Jim) until you used car gas
Did you look at changing the mixture setting on the carb to account for car gas?
Sounds like a bad mixture/fuel or maybe water contanimation.
Probably best to drain all the auto gas from the tanks and put avgas back in. The
easiest way to do this is via the fuel strainer on the firewall.
Rgs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=384981#384981
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: | Spark plug heat range |
I have both seen and tried many different heat ranges of spark plugs in my M-14P's
over the last 18 years, ranging from #4 to #8 in the NGK series. My experience
has convinced me that the "proper" heat range is related to how the engine
is operated, assuming that the engine is in a satisfactory state of tune.
"Reading" a Spark plug's condition is one of those Black Arts that can yield valuable
information to the knowledgeable eye. Less experienced tuners can still
learn something from inspecting the plugs. Weak or leaky cylinders can be indicated,
rich or lean mixtures as well as those spark plugs that only get a weak
spark due to wiring issues.
In general, operation at high power settings, typical of Yaks and Sukhois used
for aerobatic training, benefit from cooler spark plugs whereas cross-country
cruise favors a hotter range. High energy ignition system use benefits spark plug
condition but changes the normal "read". This is generally true of modified
engines with greater compression, etc.
Currently, I use the "5" heat range because I operate my engine at Cruise I and
Cruise II settings.
Craig Payne
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-6 Engine trouble |
Totally agree. Ethanol can be a disaster to the rubber components in
the fuel system, including the carburetor diaphragm. If you can not
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, based on all the documentation out
there regarding ethanol based fuels in aircraft engines NOT designed to
run on ethanol based fuels, I would not use it. And even if you can
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, it is still very prudent to test it
before putting it in your airplane.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 10/9/2012 2:45 AM, Harv wrote:
>
> Presumably the CJ was running on 100LL (with Jim) until you used car gas
>
> Did you look at changing the mixture setting on the carb to account for car gas?
>
>
> Sounds like a bad mixture/fuel or maybe water contanimation.
>
> Probably best to drain all the auto gas from the tanks and put avgas back in.
The easiest way to do this is via the fuel strainer on the firewall.
>
> Rgs
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=384981#384981
>
>
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-6 Engine trouble |
My personal experience and feelings ( no accounting it) is that using
automotive gas is a bunch of crap. There is no federal guarantee that what you
get out of those pumps is anywhere near the quality as 100LL. You pay
more for 100LL because you are paying for quality. You can put it in you tank
and not fly for 6 months and except for draining off water collecting in
the tank, the fuel is still 100LL.
Yes I know you get more flying with cheaper fuel but at the cost of a
ruined engine that decides its done 200 feet after lift off? You simply must
know what you're putting in your tank. The federalizes and state
bureaucrats (yes states have a say in mixtures) have very wide ranges of gas mixes
that are allowed at the ground ponders pumps, so there is NO telling what
you're getting from one day to the next.
With 100LL you are paying for QUALITY CONTROL. Plus the aviation industry
is not a gigantic market in the general scream of things. Also your sweet
little local bureaucrat sticks it to you by having your local FBO stick
"flowage fees" on top of every thing else.
If we want to bring down the price of 100LL we need to vote for the guy who
will eliminate the taxes we pay on 100LL. We'll fly a lot more - -
safely.
I apologize for incoherent rabble but I have had my first good nights sleep
in 3 weeks, in my own bed (with my own wife) and am deviously happy. Some
20 hours flying the B24 (loves 100LL LOTS OF IT) flying the Fi156FC
Storch (also likes 100LL) plus having to put up with a blown oil line on #3
engine ( 7 expensive gallons) on a ramp in Maine during engine start. (thank you
dear God) have left me a little tired. The weather sucked most of time
but the fall colors were nice.
I am now looking forward to commencing further testing of my electronic
ignition with "PITA" Payne.
"Honey I'm home!"
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
In a message dated 10/9/2012 7:24:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Totally agree. Ethanol can be a disaster to the rubber components in
the fuel system, including the carburetor diaphragm. If you can not
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, based on all the documentation out
there regarding ethanol based fuels in aircraft engines NOT designed to
run on ethanol based fuels, I would not use it. And even if you can
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, it is still very prudent to test it
before putting it in your airplane.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 10/9/2012 2:45 AM, Harv wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Harv" <martin.harvey@kbr.com>
>
> Presumably the CJ was running on 100LL (with Jim) until you used car gas
>
> Did you look at changing the mixture setting on the carb to account for
car gas?
>
>
> Sounds like a bad mixture/fuel or maybe water contanimation.
>
> Probably best to drain all the auto gas from the tanks and put avgas
back in. The easiest way to do this is via the fuel strainer on the firewall.
>
> Rgs
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=384981#384981
>
>
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: | Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble |
Did I hear a Vigra moment there?
I'm with you, Pappy. 110 LL all the way. Especially after having to tear dow
n and rebuild a brand new lawn tractor's carb because it sat on the show roo
m curb for a couple of months. The varnish build up in the jets, float bowl,
and the solenoid was remarkable! The diaphragm in the 52/50 is not rated fo
r ethanol and the flapper valves in the right wing fuel line does not like t
he crap that is in auto fuel just to name a couple things I've seen with aut
o gas usage.
Kind like the Fram filter man...pay me now or pay me later.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 9, 2012, at 8:08 AM, cjpilot710@aol.com wrote:
> My personal experience and feelings ( no accounting it) is that using auto
motive gas is a bunch of crap. There is no federal guarantee that what you g
et out of those pumps is anywhere near the quality as 100LL. You pay more f
or 100LL because you are paying for quality. You can put it in you tank and
not fly for 6 months and except for draining off water collecting in the ta
nk, the fuel is still 100LL.
>
> Yes I know you get more flying with cheaper fuel but at the cost of a ruin
ed engine that decides its done 200 feet after lift off? You simply must kn
ow what you're putting in your tank. The federalizes and state bureaucrats (
yes states have a say in mixtures) have very wide ranges of gas mixes that a
re allowed at the ground ponders pumps, so there is NO telling what you're g
etting from one day to the next.
>
> With 100LL you are paying for QUALITY CONTROL. Plus the aviation industry
is not a gigantic market in the general scream of things. Also your sweet l
ittle local bureaucrat sticks it to you by having your local FBO stick "flo
wage fees" on top of every thing else.
>
> If we want to bring down the price of 100LL we need to vote for the guy wh
o will eliminate the taxes we pay on 100LL. We'll fly a lot more - - safel
y.
>
> I apologize for incoherent rabble but I have had my first good nights slee
p in 3 weeks, in my own bed (with my own wife) and am deviously happy. Some
20 hours flying the B24 (loves 100LL LOTS OF IT) flying the Fi156FC Storch (
also likes 100LL) plus having to put up with a blown oil line on #3 engine (
7 expensive gallons) on a ramp in Maine during engine start. (thank you dea
r God) have left me a little tired. The weather sucked most of time but the
fall colors were nice.
>
> I am now looking forward to commencing further testing of my electronic ig
nition with "PITA" Payne.
>
> "Honey I'm home!"
>
> Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/9/2012 7:24:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsavarese
0812@bellsouth.net writes:
uth.net>
>
> Totally agree. Ethanol can be a disaster to the rubber components in
> the fuel system, including the carburetor diaphragm. If you can not
> purchase ethanol free auto fuel, based on all the documentation out
> there regarding ethanol based fuels in aircraft engines NOT designed to
> run on ethanol based fuels, I would not use it. And even if you can
> purchase ethanol free auto fuel, it is still very prudent to test it
> before putting it in your airplane.
>
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 10/9/2012 2:45 AM, Harv wrote:
> >
> > Presumably the CJ was running on 100LL (with Jim) until you used car gas
> >
> > Did you look at changing the mixture setting on the carb to account for c
ar gas?
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a bad mixture/fuel or maybe water contanimation.
> >
> > Probably best to drain all the auto gas from the tanks and put avgas bac
k in. The easiest way to do this is via the fuel strainer on the firewall
.
> >
> > Rgs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=384981#384981
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >< ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contributi
on Web Site p;
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble |
If you use mogas, know your suplier, also test your fuel. over 1900 hrs in
my CJ more than 1/2 of that with mogas,no problems to this date. BJ
In a message dated 10/9/2012 8:40:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jblake207@comcast.net writes:
Jim (or anyone else who is aware on the subject)
I've always heard the Chinese use 70 octane fuel in the H6, 285HP motors,
so using an ethanol free 87 octane would seem to be more prudent over time
as compared to using 100LL with all that lead. Does anyone know if the
Chinese use a leaded fuel; how much lead (100LL has about 2 grams per
gallon) and if they use any other additive such as MMO or TCP, etc for cle
aning
the top cylinder?
I personally use a combination of 87 mogas (ethanol free) and 100LL
not
saying that=99s right and price is not the deciding factor. The lon
g-term
effects to the engine are the main ingredients for my rationale and recipe
.
And yes, I add marvel mystery oil to the recipe for all the fuels I burn.
Jon Blake
jblake207@comcast.net
____________________________________
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
Cc: Bigj10@msn.com, keifin@bellsouth.net, mdshelley@aol.com,
walterfricke@yahoo.com, dabear@damned.org, dandmaz@cox.com, cj6apilot@gmai
l.com,
KILOUSMC@aol.com, cd001633@mindspring.com, N23GD@YAHOO.COM,
rcollings@collingsfoundation.org, jtobul@tobul.com, dandmaz@cox.net, swift
y305@bellsouth.net,
ByronMFox@aol.com, JandEFinley@comcast.net, BKENNAMORE@aol.com,
bfischer@eaa.org, judgeright@juno.com, kenterry@cfl.rr.com,
bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com, Hess737@aol.com, jblake207@comcast.net, jf
ird@direcway.com,
jhrollison@jccomp.com, ARagheb@aol.com, Jwfordham@aol.com, scgsmg@bellsout
h.net,
Frenese@aol.com, jhrollison@jcis.net, rlanger2@comcast.net, "bill mills"
<bill.mills@tbdpartners.com>, sdalton@hughes.net, wildf15c@gmail.com,
jhrollison@sbcglobal.net, motnosam1@gmail.com, randmyak52@bellsouth.net, "
boswell
bruce" <boswell.bruce@gmail.com>, Duncan1574@sbcglobal.net,
michaelfoster@bellsouth.net, jefflinebaugh@gmail.com, Albatrosslady@msn.com
,
gardnerpilot@earthlink.net, byronmfox@gmail.com, "hank gibson" <hank.gibso
n@fnf.com>,
dmcgirt@gmail.com, bill@yakrobatics.com, ni909ne@hotmail.com,
kimberly@wingsoverflagler.com, bkennamore@aol.com, "chuck hickey" <chuck.h
ickey@coair.com>,
julieinthesky@netscape.net, "chuck hickey" <chuck.hickey@united.com>,
cpayne@joimail.com, edrisfgh@verizon.net, thaismoreiraq@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:08:37 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble
My personal experience and feelings ( no accounting it) is that using
automotive gas is a bunch of crap. There is no federal guarantee that wha
t you
get out of those pumps is anywhere near the quality as 100LL. You pay
more for 100LL because you are paying for quality. You can put it in you
tank
and not fly for 6 months and except for draining off water collecting in
the tank, the fuel is still 100LL.
Yes I know you get more flying with cheaper fuel but at the cost of a
ruined engine that decides its done 200 feet after lift off? You simply m
ust
know what you're putting in your tank. The federalizes and state
bureaucrats (yes states have a say in mixtures) have very wide ranges of g
as mixes
that are allowed at the ground ponders pumps, so there is NO telling what
you're getting from one day to the next.
With 100LL you are paying for QUALITY CONTROL. Plus the aviation industry
is not a gigantic market in the general scream of things. Also your sweet
little local bureaucrat sticks it to you by having your local FBO stick
"flowage fees" on top of every thing else.
If we want to bring down the price of 100LL we need to vote for the guy
who will eliminate the taxes we pay on 100LL. We'll fly a lot more - -
safely.
I apologize for incoherent rabble but I have had my first good nights
sleep in 3 weeks, in my own bed (with my own wife) and am deviously happy.
Some 20 hours flying the B24 (loves 100LL LOTS OF IT) flying the Fi156FC
Storch (also likes 100LL) plus having to put up with a blown oil line on #
3
engine ( 7 expensive gallons) on a ramp in Maine during engine start. (tha
nk
you dear God) have left me a little tired. The weather sucked most of tim
e
but the fall colors were nice.
I am now looking forward to commencing further testing of my electronic
ignition with "PITA" Payne.
"Honey I'm home!"
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
In a message dated 10/9/2012 7:24:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Totally agree. Ethanol can be a disaster to the rubber components in
the fuel system, including the carburetor diaphragm. If you can not
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, based on all the documentation out
there regarding ethanol based fuels in aircraft engines NOT designed to
run on ethanol based fuels, I would not use it. And even if you can
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, it is still very prudent to test it
before putting it in your airplane.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 10/9/2012 2:45 AM, Harv wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Harv" <martin.harvey@kbr.com>
>
> Presumably the CJ was running on 100LL (with Jim) until you used car ga
s
>
> Did you look at changing the mixture setting on the carb to account for
car gas?
>
>
> Sounds like a bad mixture/fuel or maybe water contanimation.
>
> Probably best to drain all the auto gas from the tanks and put avgas
back in. The easiest way to do this is via the fuel strainer on the firewa
ll.
>
> Rgs
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=384981#384981
>
>
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: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 07/28/12 |
Hi,
Please note that next week my e-mail will change to : flyyak52@me.com .
Thanks,
Dan Christian
---- Yak-List Digest Server <yak-list@matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete Yak-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Yak-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 12-07-28&Archive=Yak
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 12-07-28&Archive=Yak
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Yak-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sat 07/28/12: 8
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 11:12 AM - Re: Re: Nanchang accident. (Warren Hill)
> 2. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Nanchang accident. (Brian Lloyd)
> 3. 12:24 PM - Re: airshow comments (keithmckinley)
> 4. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: Nanchang accident. (Bill Geipel)
> 5. 02:37 PM - Re: Re: Nanchang accident. (Brian Lloyd)
> 6. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: Nanchang accident. (Byron Fox)
> 7. 06:20 PM - Re: Re: Nanchang accident. (Bill Geipel)
> 8. 06:21 PM - Re: Re: Nanchang accident. (Bill Geipel)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:12:37 AM PST US
> From: Warren Hill <k7wx@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Nanchang accident.
>
> Brian,
>
> What the Lift Reserve Indicator is telling you is the lift status of the
> wing. Certainly one of the most critical items on takeoff and approach.
> It's indication is independent of density altitude, airspeed, loading,
> etc. Sounds a lot like AOA to me. Pure AOA, combined information,
> whatever... this is all just chat room semantics. It is an AOA
> indication direct or indirect and if it adds additional information, all
> the better. On takeoff and landing, I'll have my eyes in this more than
> the airspeed indicator. It is a lovely instrument, certainly worthy or
> consideration by anyone who is looking to move safety up to the next
> level. All of these indicators (Advanced AOA, Right Angle, Alpha
> Systems, InAir Instruments) add the same kind of extra, very valuable
> information which I have come to believe is the right information for
> these two important aspects of flight. However, to dismiss the LRI
> variation on this theme is disingenuous.
>
> Warren
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> > Many people like the the LRI. Unfortunately, the LRI does NOT display
> AoA, at least not directly. AoA is a factor but I was never able to
> discern what that instrument was telling me. =46rom what I can tell, it
> displays AoA times airspeed which probably is just total lift.
> Regardless, it is DEFINITELY NOT pure AoA and cannot be treated as such.
> If you want AoA you need to get a different instrument.
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:47:47 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Nanchang accident.
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Warren Hill <k7wx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > What the Lift Reserve Indicator is telling you is the lift status of the
> > wing. Certainly one of the most critical items on takeoff and approach.
> > It's indication is independent of density altitude, airspeed, loading, etc.
> > Sounds a lot like AOA to me. Pure AOA, combined information, whatever...
> > this is all just chat room semantics. It is an AOA indication direct or
> > indirect and if it adds additional information, all the better. On takeoff
> > and landing, I'll have my eyes in this more than the airspeed indicator. It
> > is a lovely instrument, certainly worthy or consideration by anyone who is
> > looking to move safety up to the next level. All of these indicators
> > (Advanced AOA, Right Angle, Alpha Systems, InAir Instruments) add the same
> > kind of extra, very valuable information which I have come to believe is
> > the right information for these two important aspects of flight. However,
> > to dismiss the LRI variation on this theme is disingenuous.
> >
>
> Many of the people on this list have flown aircraft that have an instrument
> that displays alpha, the actual angle-of-attack of the wing. If you are
> used to flying with such an instrument then an instrument that purports to
> deliver that information but doesn't can lead to erroneous decisions. So,
> to me, the key is to know *exactly* what the instrument is telling you.
>
> When I first encountered the LRI I considered buying one because I really
> like knowing just where the airfoil is operating. I studied the instrument
> and became confused because I couldn't see that it could work as a true AoA
> instrument. Then then went and read the patent. Again I couldn't see how it
> would function as a true AoA instrument. I then borrowed an aircraft with
> an LRI installed an did my own flight testing. I confirmed for myself that
> it does not behave as a true AoA indicator.
>
> Now that is not to say that it is not useful, far from it. A properly
> installed LRI will always properly indicate critical AoA, i.e. stall. From
> that point of view it is quite useful. Also, in unaccelerated flight, e.g.
> on a stabilized approach, it does a very good job of telling you just how
> far you are from stall so that is also very useful. But as you load up the
> airframe in maneuvering flight, the indications become less useful. A
> needle indication that indicates substantial margin from stall in
> unaccelerated flight may actually be quite close to critical AoA in
> accelerated flight. So, while I am not denigrating the LRI, I am trying to
> make sure that others here understand that it is NOT displaying alpha.
> That's all.
>
> At the same time I looked at the Advanced Flight Systems AoA, and the
> RiteAngle AoA. I opted to purchase the AFS AoA Pro (I liked its
> installation simplicity relative to the RiteAngle) and installed it in my
> CJ6A. I tested it over flight loads from 0.5G to 5G and verified that it
> properly displays alpha under all accelerations. Over the entire flight
> regime it shows zero lift/zero alpha regardless of airspeed (really useful
> when you know you have blown a maneuver and want to exit gracefully without
> having the airframe depart) and it shows me exactly how much more I can
> pull before I will reach critical AoA. For these reasons I feel that the
> AFS AoA met my needs far better than the LRI.
>
> So, I know that many of you think I am an asshole and that I am unfairly
> denigrating Bill Geipel's invention just because I AM an asshole. But I
> would like you to reconsider and do your own analysis of the various
> instruments knowing what they tell you. If after doing that you decide you
> like the LRI better then I encourage you to install one. I found that it
> did not tell me what I wanted to know and instead opted for a different
> instrument. And I wanted the pilots here who have flown using an AoA
> indicator to be aware that the LRI might not be telling them what they
> think it is telling them.
>
> But the LRI is indeed a useful instrument.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
> ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 12:24:27 PM PST US
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: airshow comments
> From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
>
>
> MY favorite is Wall Mart Warbird!
>
> Btw, when you hear those comments and feel a need to respond, ask them what airplane
> they own. Otherwise enjoy the show and the free gas.
>
> --------
> Keith McKinley
> 700HS
> KFIT
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=379424#379424
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:14:12 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Nanchang accident.
> From: Bill Geipel <czech6@mesanetworks.net>
>
> When you think about it, who cares what the angle of attack is or if it is r
> eal AOA or what the critical AOA is i.e. 15 units. Cessna never told me at w
> hat angle the wing will stall so I don't really care. What I do know from al
> l these units is where the wing will stall. Not much more needed. I know for
> a fact when the LRI is loaded up in an accelerated maneuver it is still acc
> urate. As soon as the needle hits the critical AOA, you stall. Whether its 6
> 0 or 160 kts. The only unit that displays true AOA is Rite Angle. It actuall
> y has a little wing flying in undisturbed air staying parallel to the relati
> ve wind. The rest use pressure differential. They all have 2 ports, they mea
> sure the difference.
>
> They all tell how much lift is still available in the wing. They tell you no
> t when the wing will buffet, but when it actually departs. Pick your price, y
> our display choice, many lites, few lites, chevrons, or analog gauge, and ha
> ve fun.
>
> When I'm out mixing it up with the boys, I can pull until I feel the rumble,
> the needle or lights are approaching L/D max, that all means I'm getting ma
> x performance from my wing. Pull anymore, I lose,(stall), pull any less I l
> ose. ( The fight).
>
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Warren Hill <k7wx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> > What the Lift Reserve Indicator is telling you is the lift status of the w
> ing. Certainly one of the most critical items on takeoff and approach. It's i
> ndication is independent of density altitude, airspeed, loading, etc. Sounds
> a lot like AOA to me. Pure AOA, combined information, whatever... this is a
> ll just chat room semantics. It is an AOA indication direct or indirect and i
> f it adds additional information, all the better. On takeoff and landing, I'
> ll have my eyes in this more than the airspeed indicator. It is a lovely ins
> trument, certainly worthy or consideration by anyone who is looking to move s
> afety up to the next level. All of these indicators (Advanced AOA, Right Ang
> le, Alpha Systems, InAir Instruments) add the same kind of extra, very valua
> ble information which I have come to believe is the right information for th
> ese two important aspects of flight. However, to dismiss the LRI variation o
> n this theme is disingenuous.
> >
> > Many of the people on this list have flown aircraft that have an instrumen
> t that displays alpha, the actual angle-of-attack of the wing. If you are us
> ed to flying with such an instrument then an instrument that purports to del
> iver that information but doesn't can lead to erroneous decisions. So, to me
> , the key is to know *exactly* what the instrument is telling you.
> >
> > When I first encountered the LRI I considered buying one because I really l
> ike knowing just where the airfoil is operating. I studied the instrument an
> d became confused because I couldn't see that it could work as a true AoA in
> strument. Then then went and read the patent. Again I couldn't see how it wo
> uld function as a true AoA instrument. I then borrowed an aircraft with an L
> RI installed an did my own flight testing. I confirmed for myself that it do
> es not behave as a true AoA indicator.
> >
> > Now that is not to say that it is not useful, far from it. A properly inst
> alled LRI will always properly indicate critical AoA, i.e. stall. =46rom tha
> t point of view it is quite useful. Also, in unaccelerated flight, e.g. on a
> stabilized approach, it does a very good job of telling you just how far yo
> u are from stall so that is also very useful. But as you load up the airfram
> e in maneuvering flight, the indications become less useful. A needle indica
> tion that indicates substantial margin from stall in unaccelerated flight ma
> y actually be quite close to critical AoA in accelerated flight. So, while I
> am not denigrating the LRI, I am trying to make sure that others here under
> stand that it is NOT displaying alpha. That's all.
> >
> > At the same time I looked at the Advanced Flight Systems AoA, and the Rite
> Angle AoA. I opted to purchase the AFS AoA Pro (I liked its installation sim
> plicity relative to the RiteAngle) and installed it in my CJ6A. I tested it o
> ver flight loads from 0.5G to 5G and verified that it properly displays alph
> a under all accelerations. Over the entire flight regime it shows zero lift/
> zero alpha regardless of airspeed (really useful when you know you have blow
> n a maneuver and want to exit gracefully without having the airframe depart)
> and it shows me exactly how much more I can pull before I will reach critic
> al AoA. For these reasons I feel that the AFS AoA met my needs far better th
> an the LRI.
> >
> > So, I know that many of you think I am an asshole and that I am unfairly d
> enigrating Bill Geipel's invention just because I AM an asshole. But I would
> like you to reconsider and do your own analysis of the various instruments k
> nowing what they tell you. If after doing that you decide you like the LRI b
> etter then I encourage you to install one. I found that it did not tell me w
> hat I wanted to know and instead opted for a different instrument. And I wan
> ted the pilots here who have flown using an AoA indicator to be aware that t
> he LRI might not be telling them what they think it is telling them.
> >
> > But the LRI is indeed a useful instrument.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> > 3191 Western Dr.
> > Cameron Park, CA 95682
> > brian@lloyd.com
> > +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> > +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
> >
> >
> >
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:37:08 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Nanchang accident.
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Bill Geipel <czech6@mesanetworks.net>wrote:
>
> > When you think about it, who cares what the angle of attack is or if it is
> > real AOA or what the critical AOA is i.e. 15 units.
> >
>
> Well, actually, I do. And I understand that you do not and that is just
> fine.
>
>
> > Cessna never told me at what angle the wing will stall so I don't really
> > care.
> >
>
> Well, I don't care about the actual angle either, just where I am between
> an alpha of zero and critical AoA.
>
>
> > What I do know from all these units is where the wing will stall. Not much
> > more needed. I know for a fact when the LRI is loaded up in an accelerated
> > maneuver it is still accurate.
> >
>
> But only WRT critical AoA. The LRI specifically is not helpful to find an
> alpha of zero or the alpha that produces best L/D, other points I really
> like to know, especially if I am vertical.
>
>
> > As soon as the needle hits the critical AOA, you stall. Whether its 60 or
> > 160 kts. The only unit that displays true AOA is Rite Angle. It actually
> > has a little wing flying in undisturbed air staying parallel to the
> > relative wind. The rest use pressure differential. They all have 2 ports,
> > they measure the difference.
> >
>
> Well, the Advanced Flight Systems AoA is a four-port device. It actually
> samples pitot and static pressures as well. That way it can correct for IAS
> leaving just AoA on the display.
>
>
> >
> > They all tell how much lift is still available in the wing.
> >
>
> I guess that is where you and I differ. I am not really interested in the
> lift available in the wing but what AoA the wing is operating at and the
> percentage of increase in AoA remains to me. It tells me how much harder I
> *can* pull, where best L/D is, and it tells me where to put the stick to
> achieve an alpha of zero if I want the aircraft ballistic or if I've
> botched a maneuver and want to fall through without stalling and/or
> spinning. Doing loops and blow your entry speed or initial pull? You can
> see at a glance you aren't going to make so so you just pop the stick to
> zero alpha and let the nose fall through. No "falling out the top" of a
> loop ever again. That is where you want to know alpha at something other
> than critical AoA (stall).
>
> They tell you not when the wing will buffet, but when it actually departs.
> > Pick your price, your display choice, many lites, few lites, chevrons, or
> > analog gauge, and have fun.
> >
>
> Well, you do have to know what they are telling you so that you don't ask
> the display for information it can't give you.
>
>
> > When I'm out mixing it up with the boys, I can pull until I feel the
> > rumble, the needle or lights are approaching L/D max, that all means I'm
> > getting max performance from my wing. Pull anymore, I lose,(stall), pull
> > any less I lose. ( The fight).
> >
>
> And if you are happy with your instrument then that is the instrument you
> should use. In my case I want information your instrument doesn't give me
> so it didn't serve my purposes.
>
> So, I am not trying to denigrate your LRI. I am just trying to make sure
> that the people on the list are aware that these instruments are NOT all
> equal, especially the pilots who have expectations from flying heavier iron
> that had true AoA instruments in them.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:04:45 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Nanchang accident.
> From: Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com>
>
> Installed a LRI in our CJ about 9 years ago.
> It has performed reliably, and was particularly helpful at Truckee Airport i
> n the Sierras on warm 9,000' density altitude days a few weeks ago. Provides
> comfort for a day-to-day sea level pilot.
>
> ...Blitz
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 28, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Warren Hill <k7wx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > What the Lift Reserve Indicator is telling you is the lift status of the w
> ing. Certainly one of the most critical items on takeoff and approach. It's i
> ndication is independent of density altitude, airspeed, loading, etc. Sounds
> a lot like AOA to me. Pure AOA, combined information, whatever... this is a
> ll just chat room semantics. It is an AOA indication direct or indirect and i
> f it adds additional information, all the better. On takeoff and landing, I'
> ll have my eyes in this more than the airspeed indicator. It is a lovely ins
> trument, certainly worthy or consideration by anyone who is looking to move s
> afety up to the next level. All of these indicators (Advanced AOA, Right Ang
> le, Alpha Systems, InAir Instruments) add the same kind of extra, very valua
> ble information which I have come to believe is the right information for th
> ese two important aspects of flight. However, to dismiss the LRI variation o
> n this theme is disingenuous.
> >
> > Warren
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >
> >> Many people like the the LRI. Unfortunately, the LRI does NOT display AoA
> , at least not directly. AoA is a factor but I was never able to discern wha
> t that instrument was telling me. =46rom what I can tell, it displays AoA ti
> mes airspeed which probably is just total lift. Regardless, it is DEFINITELY
> NOT pure AoA and cannot be treated as such. If you want AoA you need to get
> a different instrument.
> >
> >
> >
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:20:33 PM PST US
> From: Bill Geipel <czech6@mesanetworks.net>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Nanchang accident.
>
> You care what AOA is. Doesn't help you fly better.
> LRI is helpful maintaining L/D max. Vx. Cessna spent the money to determine i
> t. LRI will maintain it as that speed changes with altitude.
> Advanced system has has four ports, two came with the airplane. It still is m
> easuring pressure differential.
>
> We don't differ. They all tell you that. I've used them all, studied them al
> l and you can gain what you Ned from them all. The harder you pull, the furt
> her toward the red they all move. When You get there stop pulling. There is n
> o hidden or difficult science to any of the AOA systems. If there were, I co
> uldn't have figured it out.
>
> As long as you know where it will stall, you know everything. Most normal av
> iators will have what they need.
>
> I have zero interest and am not promoting any one system. They were all desi
> gned to do the same thing. Different ways to skin a cat.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Bill Geipel <czech6@mesanetworks.net> wro
> te:
> > When you think about it, who cares what the angle of attack is or if it is
> real AOA or what the critical AOA is i.e. 15 units.
> >
> > Well, actually, I do. And I understand that you do not and that is just fi
> ne.
> >
> > Cessna never told me at what angle the wing will stall so I don't really c
> are.
> >
> > Well, I don't care about the actual angle either, just where I am between a
> n alpha of zero and critical AoA.
> >
> > What I do know from all these units is where the wing will stall. Not much
> more needed. I know for a fact when the LRI is loaded up in an accelerated m
> aneuver it is still accurate.
> >
> > But only WRT critical AoA. The LRI specifically is not helpful to find an a
> lpha of zero or the alpha that produces best L/D, other points I really like
> to know, especially if I am vertical.
> >
> > As soon as the needle hits the critical AOA, you stall. Whether its 60 or 1
> 60 kts. The only unit that displays true AOA is Rite Angle. It actually has a
> little wing flying in undisturbed air staying parallel to the relative wind
> . The rest use pressure differential. They all have 2 ports, they measure th
> e difference.
> >
> > Well, the Advanced Flight Systems AoA is a four-port device. It actually s
> amples pitot and static pressures as well. That way it can correct for IAS l
> eaving just AoA on the display.
> >
> >
> > They all tell how much lift is still available in the wing.
> >
> > I guess that is where you and I differ. I am not really interested in the l
> ift available in the wing but what AoA the wing is operating at and the perc
> entage of increase in AoA remains to me. It tells me how much harder I *can*
> pull, where best L/D is, and it tells me where to put the stick to achieve a
> n alpha of zero if I want the aircraft ballistic or if I've botched a maneuv
> er and want to fall through without stalling and/or spinning. Doing loops an
> d blow your entry speed or initial pull? You can see at a glance you aren't g
> oing to make so so you just pop the stick to zero alpha and let the nose fal
> l through. No "falling out the top" of a loop ever again. That is where you w
> ant to know alpha at something other than critical AoA (stall).
> >
> > They tell you not when the wing will buffet, but when it actually departs.
> Pick your price, your display choice, many lites, few lites, chevrons, or a
> nalog gauge, and have fun.
> >
> > Well, you do have to know what they are telling you so that you don't ask t
> he display for information it can't give you.
> >
> > When I'm out mixing it up with the boys, I can pull until I feel the rumbl
> e, the needle or lights are approaching L/D max, that all means I'm getting m
> ax performance from my wing. Pull anymore, I lose,(stall), pull any less I l
> ose. ( The fight).
> >
> > And if you are happy with your instrument then that is the instrument you s
> hould use. In my case I want information your instrument doesn't give me so i
> t didn't serve my purposes.
> >
> > So, I am not trying to denigrate your LRI. I am just trying to make sure t
> hat the people on the list are aware that these instruments are NOT all equa
> l, especially the pilots who have expectations from flying heavier iron that
> had true AoA instruments in them.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> > 3191 Western Dr.
> > Cameron Park, CA 95682
> > brian@lloyd.com
> > +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> > +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
> >
> >
> >
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:21:15 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Nanchang accident.
> From: Bill Geipel <czech6@mesanetworks.net>
>
> Smart aviator. Just need to convince the FAA to get rid of the airspeed indi
> cator.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Installed a LRI in our CJ about 9 years ago.
> > It has performed reliably, and was particularly helpful at Truckee Airport
> in the Sierras on warm 9,000' density altitude days a few weeks ago. Provid
> es comfort for a day-to-day sea level pilot.
> >
> > ...Blitz
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jul 28, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Warren Hill <k7wx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Brian,
> >>
> >> What the Lift Reserve Indicator is telling you is the lift status of the w
> ing. Certainly one of the most critical items on takeoff and approach. It's i
> ndication is independent of density altitude, airspeed, loading, etc. Sounds
> a lot like AOA to me. Pure AOA, combined information, whatever... this is a
> ll just chat room semantics. It is an AOA indication direct or indirect and i
> f it adds additional information, all the better. On takeoff and landing, I'
> ll have my eyes in this more than the airspeed indicator. It is a lovely ins
> trument, certainly worthy or consideration by anyone who is looking to move s
> afety up to the next level. All of these indicators (Advanced AOA, Right Ang
> le, Alpha Systems, InAir Instruments) add the same kind of extra, very valua
> ble information which I have come to believe is the right information for th
> ese two important aspects of flight. However, to dismiss the LRI variation o
> n this theme is disingenuous.
> >>
> >> Warren
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >>
> >>> Many people like the the LRI. Unfortunately, the LRI does NOT display Ao
> A, at least not directly. AoA is a factor but I was never able to discern wh
> at that instrument was telling me. =46rom what I can tell, it displays AoA t
> imes airspeed which probably is just total lift. Regardless, it is DEFINITEL
> Y NOT pure AoA and cannot be treated as such. If you want AoA you need to ge
> t a different instrument.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ========================
> ========
> >> //www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >> ========================
> ========
> >> cs.com
> >> ========================
> ========
> >> matronics.com/contribution
> >> ========================
> ========
> >>
> >
> >
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> =========================
> ========
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Gang,
I just received this video from Gordon Price, the now owner of my Yak-50. Serial
#001 is in great hands....Gord is proving that you can still fly the stuff
out of an airplane at 70...impressive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmYSIGm4-gw
Happy Flying!
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
(877) 869-6458
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=385009#385009
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: CJ-6 Engine trouble |
Everything is a compromise. I've seen remarkable lead build up on exhaust valves
on M-14's running on 100LL and nothing added. Especially when the engine is
treated gently with low power settings and cool cylinder head temps.
That said, if you can address the lead issue, 100LL is a much cleaner longer lasting
fuel than anything else. It's all I run. Others have had success with MOGAS.
Others have had some serious issues. Comes back down to personal choice.
And that is pretty much how that goes.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Tue 10/9/2012 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: CJ-6 Engine trouble
Did I hear a Vigra moment there?
I'm with you, Pappy. 110 LL all the way. Especially after having to tear down and
rebuild a brand new lawn tractor's carb because it sat on the show room curb
for a couple of months. The varnish build up in the jets, float bowl, and the
solenoid was remarkable! The diaphragm in the 52/50 is not rated for ethanol
and the flapper valves in the right wing fuel line does not like the crap that
is in auto fuel just to name a couple things I've seen with auto gas usage.
Kind like the Fram filter man...pay me now or pay me later.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 9, 2012, at 8:08 AM, cjpilot710@aol.com wrote:
My personal experience and feelings ( no accounting it) is that using automotive
gas is a bunch of crap. There is no federal guarantee that what you get out
of those pumps is anywhere near the quality as 100LL. You pay more for 100LL
because you are paying for quality. You can put it in you tank and not fly
for 6 months and except for draining off water collecting in the tank, the fuel
is still 100LL.
Yes I know you get more flying with cheaper fuel but at the cost of a ruined engine
that decides its done 200 feet after lift off? You simply must know what
you're putting in your tank. The federalizes and state bureaucrats (yes states
have a say in mixtures) have very wide ranges of gas mixes that are allowed
at the ground ponders pumps, so there is NO telling what you're getting from
one day to the next.
With 100LL you are paying for QUALITY CONTROL. Plus the aviation industry is
not a gigantic market in the general scream of things. Also your sweet little
local bureaucrat sticks it to you by having your local FBO stick "flowage fees"
on top of every thing else.
If we want to bring down the price of 100LL we need to vote for the guy who will
eliminate the taxes we pay on 100LL. We'll fly a lot more - - safely.
I apologize for incoherent rabble but I have had my first good nights sleep in
3 weeks, in my own bed (with my own wife) and am deviously happy. Some 20 hours
flying the B24 (loves 100LL LOTS OF IT) flying the Fi156FC Storch (also likes
100LL) plus having to put up with a blown oil line on #3 engine ( 7 expensive
gallons) on a ramp in Maine during engine start. (thank you dear God) have
left me a little tired. The weather sucked most of time but the fall colors
were nice.
I am now looking forward to commencing further testing of my electronic ignition
with "PITA" Payne.
"Honey I'm home!"
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
In a message dated 10/9/2012 7:24:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net
writes:
Totally agree. Ethanol can be a disaster to the rubber components in
the fuel system, including the carburetor diaphragm. If you can not
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, based on all the documentation out
there regarding ethanol based fuels in aircraft engines NOT designed to
run on ethanol based fuels, I would not use it. And even if you can
purchase ethanol free auto fuel, it is still very prudent to test it
before putting it in your airplane.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com <http://www.yak-52.com/>
Skype - Yakguy1
On 10/9/2012 2:45 AM, Harv wrote:
>
> Presumably the CJ was running on 100LL (with Jim) until you used car gas
>
> Did you look at changing the mixture setting on the carb to account for car
gas?
>
>
> Sounds like a bad mixture/fuel or maybe water contanimation.
>
> Probably best to drain all the auto gas from the tanks and put avgas back in.
The easiest way to do this is via the fuel strainer on the firewall.
>
> Rgs
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=384981#384981
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>< ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution
Web Site p;
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: | Spark plug heat range |
Well said.
I run the 6 heat range because I run my engine between 85-100% ALL THE TIME.
Rarely if ever do I pull it back. I used to... and then leaded up two cylinders
exhaust valves, and with less than wise repairs ended up with cracked rings.
I also change the plugs at least once a year. It's so cheap with auto-plugs,
there is no reason not to. Why nickle dime plugs at that price?
Since that time I noticed that Hubie Tolson's M-14's had NONE of those problems,
and he runs them HARD.
So I tried that. Worked for me. 85% on long flights, never less.
800 hours on the engine now, and it runs better than ever.
Of course I do not recommend this for anyone else, because I am not sure what the
long term outcome will be.
I'll let you know.
But the M-14 really is a tough engine.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Cpayne
Sent: Tue 10/9/2012 6:43 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Spark plug heat range
I have both seen and tried many different heat ranges of spark plugs in my M-14P's
over the last 18 years, ranging from #4 to #8 in the NGK series. My experience
has convinced me that the "proper" heat range is related to how the engine
is operated, assuming that the engine is in a satisfactory state of tune.
"Reading" a Spark plug's condition is one of those Black Arts that can yield valuable
information to the knowledgeable eye. Less experienced tuners can still
learn something from inspecting the plugs. Weak or leaky cylinders can be indicated,
rich or lean mixtures as well as those spark plugs that only get a weak
spark due to wiring issues.
In general, operation at high power settings, typical of Yaks and Sukhois used
for aerobatic training, benefit from cooler spark plugs whereas cross-country
cruise favors a hotter range. High energy ignition system use benefits spark plug
condition but changes the normal "read". This is generally true of modified
engines with greater compression, etc.
Currently, I use the "5" heat range because I operate my engine at Cruise I and
Cruise II settings.
Craig Payne
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! --
|