Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:42 AM - Re: Re: Low CHT (Richard Goode)
2. 11:19 AM - Re: Low CHT (glipaz)
3. 03:59 PM - Re: Low CHT (Ttail)
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 |
|
These engines are surprisingly "individual" when choosing a suction jet. That is
that two engines of seemingly identical specification can require suction jets
0.1 mm or even 0.2 mm apart. But from my experience I would suggest that for
an M 14 PF that a 1.3 mm suction jet is probably correct. But I'd also say that
a 1.5 mm (larger means leaner since they are compensating jets) is too lean.
Then, as I said before, the CHT measuring probe under a sparking plug is an
incredibly imprecise way of measuring temperature. But it makes a huge difference
if it is really clean as indeed its "seat" onto a cylinder head. Then I would
suggest comparing its reading with an accurate external CHT measurement.
And, finally, I wouldn't be concerned about fuel flow. I feel too many people
have expensive electronic fuel flow measurements and then become obsessed by them.
Engine performance and cylinder temperature are, to my mind, the only important
factors!
RICHARD GOODE AEROBATICS
Rhodds Farm, Lyonshall, Hereford, HR5 3LW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1544 340120 Fax: +44 (0)1544 340129
e-mail: richard.goode@russianaeros.com
www.russianaeros.com
WORLD LEADERS IN SOVIET & CHINESE RADIAL AIRCRAFT ENGINES
In partnership with Aerometal Kft, Hungary.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com <owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com>
On Behalf Of Ttail
Sent: 13 July 2022 03:37
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Low CHT
Gil.
My engine (M14PF) came with 1.3mm suction jet fitted. This was changed to a 1.5mm
suction jet so slightly leaner. No issue controlling CHT's to say 180C. Also
picked up a lesser fuel burn at crz power settings. FF reduced by 4L hr.
--------
Sean Trestrail
ttail[at]internode.on.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=507466#507466
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks Richard! I will check what size we put in for the suction jet and return.
Gil
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=507468#507468
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 |
|
" I feel too many people have expensive electronic fuel flow measurements and then
become obsessed by them. Engine performance and cylinder temperature are,
to my mind, the only important factors! '[i]
The reduction in FF was an observation not an "obsession". Its also kind of nice
to have a second independent fuel qty system.
The reason the jet was changed in the first place was consistently low CHT (on
all cylinders). After the change CHT is far more manageable.[/i]
--------
Sean Trestrail
ttail[at]internode.on.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=507469#507469
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! --
|