Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Need 30 year update

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> TeamGrumman-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

cannuck

Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 14
Location: SK Canada

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:19 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

Not a typo, three zero, not three.



I sold my Tiger (0449) 30 years ago.  I still have my Yankee (0409), but it was parked in the trees 35 years ago, so that doesn't really count.  I was one of the founding year members at AYA, but when surfing around to try to catch up to the AA5B world, I ran into this site - and it seems there is a bit of a mod-crazy crowd here (so I should feel right at home).  So, if I ask some questions that make you wonder if I have been living under a rock for 3 decades, that is because I have been living under a rock for 3 decades.AA



There are a few specific things that have me very interested in finding out what has happened with AA5 mods.  When I left the fold, there was the A4K and original prop - and that was about it.  What little speed I could scrape up came from rigging, sealing cracks and seams, removing steps, keeping engine baffles tight, gutting the muffler and washing the bugs off.  I had a bit of a knack for doing extremely long, very high altitude flights (even though my name is not here, someone could get my e-mail address, so I won't tell you HOW high) with it, and managed a 143 knot cruise (at) 75% (on DME then) full fuel, solo.  I miss the economy, speed, climb, ceiling, payload and reliability of that airplane in all of the rented junk I have had to drive ever since.



I always wanted a BIT more HP.  I see there are quite a number of people holding STCs to diddle the engine room, including a 200HP/10:1 mod.  I do remember a one-off that had an 0-540 back in the day, but that was NOT a good solution to the need.  So tell me:  why hasn't anyone shoved an IO-390 under the cowl yet?  Now THAT, with a custom carbon cowling and Powerflow exhaust would get my blood boiling.



Then, there is that MT propeller.  Someone please tell me about it.  Is this thing variable speed?  Is it electric or hydraulic control?  What does it weigh?  What does it do for performance?  Their website is devoid of any useful information.



There seems to be a lack of uptake on LoPresti WOW cowlings.  Seems like a lot of potential COULD be had, but I seldom see them (nor the MT prop) on airplanes listed for sale.  These are common as dirt in the Comanche and Twinkie world.



What realistically IS the "state of the art" for 75% cruise TAS today?

_________________
AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

n2_narcosis(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:26 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

At wot, leaned to 2700 rpm (from my jpi edm830, 2500 from the factory tach, my tiger runs LOP really well), 5500 to 8500 ft, 9.8 gph, 63" pitch sensinich prop I cruise at 135-136 tas, with crappy paint trimmed with bug guts.  I have the lopresti nosebowl (wish I had Gary's cowling, but I learned of it too late).  I need better pants, buried antennas, powerflow exhaust, electronic ignition, and new paint. 



Ned might chime in on the mt prop, he has one and really likes it. Gary has installed a few of the new electronic ignitions, he might have info on those. He is also working on an stc for an 180hp io-360 with a constant speed prop. 



Brock



Sent from my iPad



On Mar 10, 2013, at 4:19 PM, "cannuck" <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Not a typo, three zero, not three.

 

 I sold my Tiger (0449) 30 years ago.  I still have my Yankee (0409), but it was parked in the trees 35 years ago, so that doesn't really count.  I was one of the founding year members at AYA, but when surfing around to try to catch up to the AA5B world, I ran into this site - and it seems there is a bit of a mod-crazy crowd here (so I should feel right at home).  So, if I ask some questions that make you wonder if I have been living under a rock for 3 decades, that is because I have been living under a rock for 3 decades.AA

 

 There are a few specific things that have me very interested in finding out what has happened with AA5 mods.  When I left the fold, there was the A4K and original prop - and that was about it.  What little speed I could scrape up came from rigging, sealing cracks and seams, removing steps, keeping engine baffles tight, gutting the muffler and washing the bugs off.  I had a bit of a knack for doing extremely long, very high altitude flights (even though my name is not here, someone could get my e-mail address, so I won't tell you HOW high) with it, and managed a 143 knot cruise (at) 75% (on DME then) full fuel, solo.  I miss the economy, speed, climb, ceiling, payload and reliability of that airplane in all of the rented junk I have had to drive ever since.

 

 I always wanted a BIT more HP.  I see there are quite a number of people holding STCs to diddle the engine room, including a 200HP/10:1 mod.  I do remember a one-off that had an 0-540 back in the day, but that was NOT a good solution to the need.  So tell me:  why hasn't anyone shoved an IO-390 under the cowl yet?  Now THAT, with a custom carbon cowling and Powerflow exhaust would get my blood boiling.

 

 Then, there is that MT propeller.  Someone please tell me about it.  Is this thing variable speed?  Is it electric or hydraulic control?  What does it weigh?  What does it do for performance?  Their website is devoid of any useful information.

 

 There seems to be a lack of uptake on LoPresti WOW cowlings.  Seems like a lot of potential COULD be had, but I seldom see them (nor the MT prop) on airplanes listed for sale.  These are common as dirt in the Comanche and Twinkie world.

 

 What realistically IS the "state of the art" for 75% cruise TAS today?

 

 --------

 AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=395977#395977

teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:17 am Post subject: Need 30 year update

Cannuck,,

Judging by your spelling and grammar, I know who you aren't.  {smile}  

Everyone quotes 75% power speeds and for the life of me, I've never understood why.   I am either going to fly fast or land.  The only time I've gone for lowest possible fuel flow is when I can see I'll be 30 minutes shy of fuel at my destination.  

That said, wide open throttle and 2950 rpm at 1000 msl and tweaking everything, I could squeeze 159-160 knots TAS out of my Tiger.  154 knots TAS was routine; at 2800 rpm.  The engine had a sweet spot at 2800 rpm.  I had my TIger to 17,800' and still climbing at 300 fpm on an average day.  Straight and level, TAS was 155 knots at 2650.

A clean, light Tiger with a mid-time engine will do 144-146 knots TAS with no antennas or steps.  

Horsepower is the key.  Cleanliness is the key.  Lightness is the key.  

I had LyCon build a roller engine for a customer.  I  let them do everything that was legal and would make power.  The engine cost $26,000+.  The result: 219 hp at 2700 rpm. And it wasn't even broken in.  

Forget the IO390.  It's too big and too heavy.  Same with the 200 hp -C1C.  Besides, my new cowling is so tight that the angle valve won't fit.  

I'm working on an  IO360, 180 hp, for my Tiger.  Constant speed prop.  Is it worth it?  I don't know.  I may not like like.  I will like FI and getting rid of carb heat, however.  

MT prop is not any faster, straight and level (climb and descent are in a different world entirely).  I'll be using a Scimitar Hartzell prop.  

BTW,  Ken can build a 411 cubic inch IO360; IO411.  Makes 240hp without even trying.  

        From: cannuck <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net>

 To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com 

 Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 2:19 PM

 Subject: Need 30 year update

  

 

 --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "cannuck" <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net (pmdolan(at)sasktel.net)>



Not a typo, three zero, not three.



I sold my Tiger (0449) 30 years ago.  I still have my Yankee (0409), but it was parked in the trees 35 years ago, so that doesn't really count.  I was one of the founding year members at AYA, but when surfing around to try to catch up to the AA5B world, I ran into this site - and it seems there is a bit of a mod-crazy crowd here (so I should feel right at home).  So, if I ask some questions that make you wonder if I have been living under a rock for 3 decades, that is because I have been living under a rock for 3 decades.AA



There are a few specific things that have me very interested in finding out what has happened with AA5 mods.  When I left the fold, there was the A4K and original prop - and that was about it.  What  little speed I could scrape up came from rigging, sealing cracks and seams, removing steps, keeping engine baffles tight, gutting the muffler and washing the bugs off.  I had a bit of a knack for doing extremely long, very high altitude flights (even though my name is not here, someone could get my e-mail address, so I won't tell you HOW high) with it, and managed a 143 knot cruise (at) 75% (on DME then) full fuel, solo.  I miss the economy, speed, climb, ceiling, payload and reliability of that airplane in all of the rented junk I have had to drive ever since.



I always wanted a BIT more HP.  I see there are quite a number of people holding STCs to diddle the engine room, including a 200HP/10:1 mod.  I do remember a one-off that had an 0-540 back in the day, but that was NOT a good solution to the need.  So tell me:  why hasn't anyone shoved an IO-390 under the cowl yet?  Now THAT, with a custom carbon cowling and  Powerflow exhaust would get my blood boiling.



Then, there is that MT propeller.  Someone please tell me about it.  Is this thing variable speed?  Is it electric or hydraulic control?  What does it weigh?  What does it do for performance?  Their website is devoid of any useful information.



There seems to be a lack of uptake on LoPresti WOW cowlings.  Seems like a lot of potential COULD be had, but I seldom see them (nor the MT prop) on airplanes listed for sale.  These are common as dirt in the Comanche and Twinkie world.



What realistically IS the "state of the art" for 75% cruise TAS today?



--------

AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=395977#39=          - The ;                   -Matt Dral



 

 

  

 [quote][b]

dan(at)rotorshop.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:36 am Post subject: Need 30 year update

On 3/11/2013 3:16 PM, Gary L Vogt       wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		         I'm working on an IO360,         180 hp, for my Tiger.  

       

     	
     

     This is something I haven't understood.  Fuel injection has been     standard in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles     with a carb and improving efficiency.  Why isn't it more prevalent     in single-engine airplanes?  Is it just because the general aviation     fleet is so old and doing the swap is too much (paper)work?

     

     

     Cheers,

     

     Dan

     

     

      [quote][b]

cannuck

Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 14
Location: SK Canada

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Need 30 year update

Ned (or is that Gary?):  thanks for the post.  What exactly can be LEGALLY done with an 0-360 - or better yet IO-360 to optimize as you mentioned from Lycon??



I imagine Ken's 411 CID engine does not exist in the world of STC of PMA parts??  MOT up here is very touchy about these things.



Dan:  not only are the engines old, so is the technology of the approved hardware.  while the regulatory burden is a giant PITA, watch the world of aero diesels for some much more current tech hitting the skies.

_________________
AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:22 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

Dan . . .  it's even worse than that.  

The fuel injection on today's production aircraft engines is 1940s technology.  They atomize the mixture with an annulus around the injector to entrain air as the fuel streams by.  A similar set ca be found on old WWII fighter engines.  The 57 Corvette used a similar system but used a real injector nozzle.  

Getting a GPS installed can be months, or even years, worth of headaches.  Electronics for fuel control?  Are you serious.  What happens during a solar flare?  What happens when someone calls you on your iPhone.  Well, nothing.  But, you'll spend the better part of a large fortune getting it approved.  

Gary

        From: Dan Veeneman <dan(at)rotorshop.com>

 To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com 

 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:36 PM

 Subject: Re: Need 30 year update

  

 

                     On 3/11/2013 3:16 PM, Gary L Vogt       wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		         I'm working on an IO360,         180 hp, for my Tiger.  

       

     	
     

     This is something I haven't understood.  Fuel injection has been     standard in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles     with a carb and improving efficiency.  Why isn't it more prevalent     in single-engine airplanes?  Is it just because the general aviation     fleet is so old and doing the swap is too much (paper)work?

     

     

     Cheers,

     

     Dan

     

     

       	  Quote: 	
		  	




 

 

  

 [quote][b]

teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:22 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

I want to see direct injected gas engines.

        From: cannuck <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net>

 To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com 

 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:58 PM

 Subject: Re: Need 30 year update

 --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "cannuck" <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net (pmdolan(at)sasktel.net)>

Ned:  thanks for the post.  What exactly can be LEGALLY done with an 0-360 - or better yet IO-360 to optimize as you mentioned from Lycon??

I imagine Ken's 411 CID engine does not exist in the world of STC of PMA parts??  MOT up here is very touchy about these things.

Dan:  not only are the engines old, so is the technology of the approved hardware.  while the regulatory burden is a giant PITA, watch the world of aero diesels for some much more current tech hitting the skies.

--------

AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=396063#396063

bob.hodo(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:30 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

I want to see Ned flying his tiger on 130 (comparable) octane compressed natural gas that he compresses at home for about 79 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent, like in his truck.

        From: Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com>

 To: "teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com" <teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com> 

 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:22 PM

 Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Need 30  year update

 I want to see direct injected gas engines.

        From: cannuck <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net>

 To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com 

 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:58 PM

 Subject: Re: Need 30 year update

 --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "cannuck" <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net (pmdolan(at)sasktel.net)>

Ned:  thanks for the post.  What exactly can be LEGALLY done with an 0-360 - or better yet IO-360 to optimize as you mentioned from Lycon??

I imagine Ken's 411 CID engine does not exist in the world of STC of PMA parts??  MOT up here is very touchy about these things.

Dan:  not only are the engines old, so is the technology of the approved hardware.  while the regulatory burden is a giant PITA, watch the world of aero diesels for some much more current tech hitting the skies.

--------

AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=396063#396063

 [quote][b]

Discover

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 429

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: Need 30 year update

Hi Cannuck,

This is Ned

I haven't posted a response yet...just to clarify that was Gary...I think.

Doesn't Canada have a category that you can put a Tiger into that allows you Canadians to treat it like our US experimentals? That's what I've been told anyway. Heh?

If I were you that's what I'd do no question. I'd take an old Tiger put whatever power plant I liked in it, say like a 22:1 compression diesel and put Skyview or Advanced Aero glass EFIS in it add that carbon fiber 20 gallon equivalent CNG tank in the back then watch the autopilot fly taking off and landing while only burning around $20 for a couple hours flight.....

Ned

Discover

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 429

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:09 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

Me too;)



On Mar 11, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Bob Hodo <bob.hodo(at)yahoo.com (bob.hodo(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

I want to see Ned flying his tiger on 130 (comparable) octane compressed natural gas that he compresses at home for about 79 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent, like in his truck.



        From: Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com (teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com)>

 To: "teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)" <teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)> 

 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:22 PM

 Subject: Re: Re: Need 30  year update

  

 

 I want to see direct injected gas engines.





        From: cannuck <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net (pmdolan(at)sasktel.net)>

 To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com) 

 Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:58 PM

 Subject: Re: Need 30 year update

   

 

 --> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "cannuck" <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net (pmdolan(at)sasktel.net)>



Ned:  thanks for the post.  What exactly can be LEGALLY done with an 0-360 - or better yet IO-360 to optimize as you mentioned from Lycon??



I imagine Ken's 411 CID engine does not exist in the world of STC of PMA parts??  MOT up here is very touchy about these things.



Dan:  not only are the engines old, so is the technology of the approved hardware.  while the regulatory burden is a giant PITA, watch the world of aero diesels for some much more current tech hitting the skies.



--------

AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=396063#396063



 





 

 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  	




 

 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  



===================================

t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List

===================================

cs.com

===================================

matronics.com/contribution

===================================



	


 [quote][b]

BARRY CHECK 6

Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 738

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:24 am Post subject: Need 30 year update

Dan:



You have to understand three points before you can understand:

1 - How fuel injection works on our engines.

2 - What has to be done to satisfy the FAA.

3 - What truly controls progress in certified aircraft aviation.

 



A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way you think it should work.  Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  Yes, ALL the cylinders.  It is injected into the same area just before the intake valve where the primer primer line goes.  And (repeating myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  ONLY the cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and Only that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires.  The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out.  What a waste!  So, if aircraft engines just went to a INDIVIDUAL injection system, just think of how much less fuel would be used.  

 



A2 - Now, this information I do NOT have first hand experience with.  But, you will always hear from those that attempt to get or have gotten an STC; how difficult it is to work with the FAA to obtain the authorization   FIRST, they are a Government organization and that equates to INEFFICIENT - LAZY and self-professed JOB SECURITY.  The only other job that is as good is a Weatherman.  They can be wrong all the time and still keep their job.  SECOND, O!  Wait a second, there is no second reason. the FIRST covers it all.

 



A3 - One would consider an engine company as an engineering company.  Engineering - Innovation and Progress driving a better product.  NOT SO!

Layers, Law Suits and Litigation is the backbone of engine companies.  They truly believe that 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.  Putting it another way:  They Lost and Won all their battles - The engine is at a state of "If it breaks it ain't our fault!" We proved IN COURT, how good our engine is.  So why open up an new can of worms.  Progress is hindered by LAWYERS and supported by FOLLOWERS.

 

Dan, if you want Engineering - Innovation and Progress - Go EXPERIMENTAL.  At least until the Government takes that away from us also.  O!  They are, they WILL.  Just read the latest Accident Reports from the FAA.  They are pointing fingers right now...  Only time until they get all the senators on their side and have the UN-knowledgeable populous supporting them.  HELL!  It worked for the EPA, why not the FAA!

 



Barry

=================================  

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dan Veeneman <dan(at)rotorshop.com (dan(at)rotorshop.com)> wrote:

 [quote]                    	  Quote: 	
		  This is something I haven't understood.  Fuel injection has been     standard in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles     with a carb and improving efficiency.  Why isn't it more prevalent     in single-engine airplanes?  Is it just because the general aviation     fleet is so old and doing the swap is too much (paper)work?

	


     

     

     Cheers,

     

     Dan

     

     

       	  Quote: 	
		  



st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




[b]

Discover

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 429

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:42 am Post subject: Re: Need 30 year update

I agree with Barry's post but would add that the carbureted engines also provide a continuous flow of fuel to the intakes. So the aircraft injection doesn't differ from the carburafion in that sense. Also, automotive injection if its not Multi-point Sequential sprays a continuous mist into the intake. Throttle bodies work this way with a single point injection. This type of injection is more effecient than carburation and doesnt require a venturi so icing, while still possible, isnt considered a prolem like it is with a Carb. The Continuous Injection System, CIS, was originally a Bosch design. Originally, there were no electric circuits involved or any computer. It's very simple and rarely fails so it is a good system for aircraft. The systems common today in autos all have a limp home mode that would lead to a forced landing in an aircraft. Those that require a computer that is. Aircraft had multi point fuel injection back even before WWII according to my Dad who worked on them. They had a fuel injection pump like a diesel still uses tody and did not rely on any electric or computer systems. They say they are more suited to supercharging than carbs

teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:15 am Post subject: Need 30 year update

[Barry] A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way you think it should work.  Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  Yes, ALL the cylinders.  It is injected into the same area just before the intake valve where the primer primer line goes.  And (repeating myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  ONLY the cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and Only that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires.  The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out.  What a waste!  So, if aircraft engines just went to  a INDIVIDUAL injection system, just think of how much less fuel would be used.  



-------------------

Dan, this is so much BullShit that I'm going to have to completely rewrite it.  Barry, go back to electronics.  Stick with what you know.  

1. Fuel injection in aircraft engines has been working fine for generations.  Stuart Hilborn, an American, became the first hot rodder to use fuel injection in drag cars and land speed racers.

2. Aircraft fuel injection uses what is  known as "drool injection."  There are no electronics involved, obviously, since the application first started in the 30s.  It's a totally mechanical system.

   â€¢ the system used by Hilborn, is a drool injection system.  The reason it works well in racing is that it is designed for a narrow operation range; 

      not unlike aircraft  engines. 

   â€¢ Zora Arkus Duntov began working on a fuel injection system for the small block Chevy in 1955.  At that time, the only option was a drool system.

     - It had to be streetable.  However, it was designed to run at WOT (wide-open-throttle).  

     - There is a guy here in Auburn who as a 57 FI Corvette engine in his "T" hot rod.  I asked for and got a ride around the block.  

       It idled smoothly, acceleration was awesome, and seemed quite docile.

   â€¢ Early GM electronic fuel injection (80s) used what is known as 'Batch" injection.  That is, one bank of cylinders on a V8 would get one shot of fuel. 

3. The "Primer" port is NOT used.  There is a port on the top of the cylinder just opposite the primer port.  The fuel injection nozzle goes in there.  

   â€¢ Fuel is never injected into the cylinder.  The only application of fuel being injected into the cylinder, i.e., the cylinder head, is in 'Direct Injection.'  

      The history of direct injection goes back to 1925.

4. Because the injector nozzle is designed to entrain air, the top of the engine, in this area near the injectors, must be  kept clean.

5. High pressure fuel pumps, both mechanical and electric, either together or separately, can provide the high pressure fuel needed at the injector.

6. While it is true that the injector constantly 'drools' fuel into the port, not much is wasted  at normal operating speeds.

   â€¢ In Barry's rant, he states that "The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out." I hope you are aware that the Otto cycle does not have a cycle in

      which the valves open and just pump air though.

7. The mechanical aircraft 'drool' fuel injection is designed to work best at 55% to 100% power.  It does an adequate job elsewhere. 

   â€¢ Since we typically pick an rpm range to operate (cruise) in, this isn't an issue.  Very little time is spent idling in traffic on the Golden Gate.

8. Obviously, Sequential Port Fuel Injection, operating closed loop with O2 sensors, would be the ideal.  

     I have the engineering drawings and calculations if you have the money.  

A2: 

Barry has absolutely no experience working with the FAA.  I have.  Barry disrespects people he has never met and knows nothing about.  

1. I personally know many of them at the ACO in LA.  All of them are hard working and doing the best they can.  

2. My only gripe is that the new guard is geared for developing transport aircraft.  There are not many left who understand GA.  

  â€¢ That is why the system encourages the use of DERs; Designated Engineering Representatives.  

3. Yes, the FAA has required me to do some lame ass things.  

  â€¢ [example] They originally wanted me to weave in aluminum strands into my cowling for lightening protection.

    - the DER gave them data showing other GA aircraft with fiberglass cowlings didn't use lightening protection.

A3:

Barry advocates a system of no checks and balances, no safety, no recourse for faulty parts, no recourse for bad engineering.

1. I see examples of bad engineering everyday.  Lots of examples in the Grumman, particularly the 90s AG5B.

2. I see shit that has been approved at a manufacturing level that is no where near prime time ready.

   â€¢ some things are just fucking stupid.  See my "dumb design decisions" on my web site.

3. Yes, the system does not encourage great innovation.  But, it will make you  think about what may, or may not, be affected by a mod.  

So, regarding 'real' fuel injection.  If you've got the money to build some prototypes, let's build a direct injected IO360.  The cylinder head would need to be modified only slightly.  It would need a completely new piston design.  And, it will need a LOT of electronics.  And, with that, a completely  redundant electronic system, complete with battery and charging circuit.  That's the tough part.  For what?  A little better torque in mid range and better fuel economy? So, you want to add a $10,000 fuel injection to your already fuel injected engine to save a gallon or two an hour?

Gary L Vogt

AuCountry Aviation

Auburn, CA  

        From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>

 To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com  

 Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:24 AM

 Subject: Re: Need 30 year update

  

 

 Dan:



You have to understand three points before you can understand:

1 - How fuel injection works on our engines.

2 - What has to be done to satisfy the FAA.

3 - What truly controls progress in certified aircraft aviation.

 



A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way you think it should work.  Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  Yes, ALL the cylinders.  It is injected into the same area just before the intake valve where the primer primer line goes.  And (repeating myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  ONLY the cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and Only that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires.  The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out.  What a waste!  So, if aircraft engines just went to a INDIVIDUAL injection system, just think of how much less fuel would be used.  

 



A2 - Now, this information I do NOT have first hand experience with.  But, you will always hear from those that attempt to get or have gotten an STC; how difficult it is to work with the FAA to obtain the authorization   FIRST, they are a Government organization and that equates to INEFFICIENT - LAZY and self-professed JOB SECURITY.  The only other job that is as good is a Weatherman.  They can be wrong all the time and still keep their job.  SECOND, O!  Wait a second, there is no second reason. the FIRST covers it all.

 



A3 - One would consider an engine company as an engineering company.  Engineering - Innovation and Progress driving a better product.  NOT SO!

Layers, Law Suits and Litigation is the backbone of engine companies.  They truly believe that 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.  Putting it another way:  They Lost and Won all their battles - The engine is at a state of "If it breaks it ain't our fault!" We proved IN COURT, how good our engine is.  So why open up an new can of worms.  Progress is hindered by LAWYERS and supported by FOLLOWERS.

 

Dan, if you want Engineering - Innovation and Progress - Go EXPERIMENTAL.  At least until the Government takes that away from us also.  O!  They are, they WILL.  Just read the latest Accident Reports from the FAA.  They are pointing fingers right now...  Only time until they get all the senators on their side and have the UN-knowledgeable populous supporting them.  HELL!  It worked for the EPA, why not the FAA!

 



Barry

========  

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dan Veeneman <dan(at)rotorshop.com (dan(at)rotorshop.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		                      	  Quote: 	
		  This is something I haven't understood.  Fuel injection has been     standard in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles     with a carb and improving efficiency.  Why isn't it more prevalent     in single-engine airplanes?  Is it just because the general aviation     fleet is so old and doing the swap is too much (paper)work?

	


     

     

     Cheers,

     

     Dan

     

     

       	  Quote: 	
		  


st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution


	




	


 

 

  

 [quote][b]

benlowther(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:44 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

Just for the record, the inlet valve on any cylinder only opens on the intake cycle ie every 2 revolution. Our engines are 4-Cycle: 1. Intake 2. Compression 3. Power (Ignition) 4. Exhaust. So the only fuel wasted is that which is not combusted during the power cycle ie rich mixture, poor ignition etc. 

Ben

On 2013-03-12, at 7:15 PM, Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com (teamgrumman(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

[quote][Barry] A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way you think it should work.  Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  Yes, ALL the cylinders.  It is injected into the same area just before the intake valve where the primer primer line goes.  And (repeating myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  ONLY the cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and Only that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires.  The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out.  What a waste!  So, if aircraft engines just went to  a INDIVIDUAL injection system, just think of how much less fuel would be used.  



-------------------

Dan, this is so much BullShit that I'm going to have to completely rewrite it.  Barry, go back to electronics.  Stick with what you know.  

1. Fuel injection in aircraft engines has been working fine for generations.  Stuart Hilborn, an American, became the first hot rodder to use fuel injection in drag cars and land speed racers.

2. Aircraft fuel injection uses what is  known as "drool injection."  There are no electronics involved, obviously, since the application first started in the 30s.  It's a totally mechanical system.

   â€¢ the system used by Hilborn, is a drool injection system.  The reason it works well in racing is that it is designed for a narrow operation range; 

      not unlike aircraft  engines. 

   â€¢ Zora Arkus Duntov began working on a fuel injection system for the small block Chevy in 1955.  At that time, the only option was a drool system.

     - It had to be streetable.  However, it was designed to run at WOT (wide-open-throttle).  

     - There is a guy here in Auburn who as a 57 FI Corvette engine in his "T" hot rod.  I asked for and got a ride around the block.  

       It idled smoothly, acceleration was awesome, and seemed quite docile.

   â€¢ Early GM electronic fuel injection (80s) used what is known as 'Batch" injection.  That is, one bank of cylinders on a V8 would get one shot of fuel. 

3. The "Primer" port is NOT used.  There is a port on the top of the cylinder just opposite the primer port.  The fuel injection nozzle goes in there.  

   â€¢ Fuel is never injected into the cylinder.  The only application of fuel being injected into the cylinder, i.e., the cylinder head, is in 'Direct Injection.'  

      The history of direct injection goes back to 1925.

4. Because the injector nozzle is designed to entrain air, the top of the engine, in this area near the injectors, must be  kept clean.

5. High pressure fuel pumps, both mechanical and electric, either together or separately, can provide the high pressure fuel needed at the injector.

6. While it is true that the injector constantly 'drools' fuel into the port, not much is wasted  at normal operating speeds.

   â€¢ In Barry's rant, he states that "The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out." I hope you are aware that the Otto cycle does not have a cycle in

      which the valves open and just pump air though.

7. The mechanical aircraft 'drool' fuel injection is designed to work best at 55% to 100% power.  It does an adequate job elsewhere. 

   â€¢ Since we typically pick an rpm range to operate (cruise) in, this isn't an issue.  Very little time is spent idling in traffic on the Golden Gate.

8. Obviously, Sequential Port Fuel Injection, operating closed loop with O2 sensors, would be the ideal.  

     I have the engineering drawings and calculations if you have the money.  

A2: 

Barry has absolutely no experience working with the FAA.  I have.  Barry disrespects people he has never met and knows nothing about.  

1. I personally know many of them at the ACO in LA.  All of them are hard working and doing the best they can.  

2. My only gripe is that the new guard is geared for developing transport aircraft.  There are not many left who understand GA.  

  â€¢ That is why the system encourages the use of DERs; Designated Engineering Representatives.  

3. Yes, the FAA has required me to do some lame ass things.  

  â€¢ [example] They originally wanted me to weave in aluminum strands into my cowling for lightening protection.

    - the DER gave them data showing other GA aircraft with fiberglass cowlings didn't use lightening protection.

A3:

Barry advocates a system of no checks and balances, no safety, no recourse for faulty parts, no recourse for bad engineering.

1. I see examples of bad engineering everyday.  Lots of examples in the Grumman, particularly the 90s AG5B.

2. I see shit that has been approved at a manufacturing level that is no where near prime time ready.

   â€¢ some things are just fucking stupid.  See my "dumb design decisions" on my web site.

3. Yes, the system does not encourage great innovation.  But, it will make you  think about what may, or may not, be affected by a mod.  

So, regarding 'real' fuel injection.  If you've got the money to build some prototypes, let's build a direct injected IO360.  The cylinder head would need to be modified only slightly.  It would need a completely new piston design.  And, it will need a LOT of electronics.  And, with that, a completely  redundant electronic system, complete with battery and charging circuit.  That's the tough part.  For what?  A little better torque in mid range and better fuel economy? So, you want to add a $10,000 fuel injection to your already fuel injected engine to save a gallon or two an hour?

Gary L Vogt

AuCountry Aviation

Auburn, CA  

        From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com (flyadive(at)gmail.com)>

 To: teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com (teamgrumman-list(at)matronics.com)  

 Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:24 AM

 Subject: Re: Need 30 year update

  

 

 Dan:



You have to understand three points before you can understand:

1 - How fuel injection works on our engines.

2 - What has to be done to satisfy the FAA.

3 - What truly controls progress in certified aircraft aviation.

 



A1 - Fuel injection for our engines does not work - Not in the way you think it should work.  Here is why - Fuel is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  Yes, ALL the cylinders.  It is injected into the same area just before the intake valve where the primer primer line goes.  And (repeating myself) it is injected into ALL the cylinders at the same time.  ONLY the cylinder that has an open Intake Valve lets the fuel into the cylinder and Only that cylinder that puts a Spark to the air:fuel mixture fires.  The other cylinders suck in the fuel and spit it out.  What a waste!  So, if aircraft engines just went to a INDIVIDUAL injection system, just think of how much less fuel would be used.  

 



A2 - Now, this information I do NOT have first hand experience with.  But, you will always hear from those that attempt to get or have gotten an STC; how difficult it is to work with the FAA to obtain the authorization   FIRST, they are a Government organization and that equates to INEFFICIENT - LAZY and self-professed JOB SECURITY.  The only other job that is as good is a Weatherman.  They can be wrong all the time and still keep their job.  SECOND, O!  Wait a second, there is no second reason. the FIRST covers it all.

 



A3 - One would consider an engine company as an engineering company.  Engineering - Innovation and Progress driving a better product.  NOT SO!

Layers, Law Suits and Litigation is the backbone of engine companies.  They truly believe that 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.  Putting it another way:  They Lost and Won all their battles - The engine is at a state of "If it breaks it ain't our fault!" We proved IN COURT, how good our engine is.  So why open up an new can of worms.  Progress is hindered by LAWYERS and supported by FOLLOWERS.

 

Dan, if you want Engineering - Innovation and Progress - Go EXPERIMENTAL.  At least until the Government takes that away from us also.  O!  They are, they WILL.  Just read the latest Accident Reports from the FAA.  They are pointing fingers right now...  Only time until they get all the senators on their side and have the UN-knowledgeable populous supporting them.  HELL!  It worked for the EPA, why not the FAA!

 



Barry

========  

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dan Veeneman <dan(at)rotorshop.com (dan(at)rotorshop.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		                      	  Quote: 	
		  This is something I haven't understood.  Fuel injection has been     standard in automobiles for decades now, eliminating the hassles     with a carb and improving efficiency.  Why isn't it more prevalent     in single-engine airplanes?  Is it just because the general aviation     fleet is so old and doing the swap is too much (paper)work?

	


     

     

     Cheers,

     

     Dan

     

     

       	  Quote: 	
		  



st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




 	


 

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  [b]



===================================

t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List

===================================

cs.com

===================================

matronics.com/contribution

===================================



	
[/b]



[b]

cannuck

Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 14
Location: SK Canada

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: Need 30 year update

 	  discover wrote: 	
		  Hi Cannuck,

This is Ned

I haven't posted a response yet...just to clarify that was Gary...I think.

Doesn't Canada have a category that you can put a Tiger into that allows you Canadians to treat it like our US experimentals? That's what I've been told anyway. Heh?

If I were you that's what I'd do no question. I'd take an old Tiger put whatever power plant I liked in it, say like a 22:1 compression diesel and put Skyview or Advanced Aero glass EFIS in it add that carbon fiber 20 gallon equivalent CNG tank in the back then watch the autopilot fly taking off and landing while only burning around $20 for a couple hours flight.....

Ned 	
Unless the rules have changed, I could not fly an owner-maintained aircraft into the US nor I believe night VFR - thus becomes nothing but a local toy.

_________________
AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

cannuck

Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 14
Location: SK Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Need 30 year update

Try to stay out of piddling contests, but there are a few things worth mentioning:   Bosch did NOT "invent" the CIS (Constant Injection System = K Jetronic).  ALL Bosch automotive gasoline injection systems since the '60s are based on BENDIX patents - as was the Rochester system used on the early Plastic Pigs of C2 & C3 series.  These were Mass Airflow Sensing systems, with a mechanical linkage (balance beam) controlling fuel delivery in response to displacement of the airflow measuring device.



The earliest production electronic (not digital) system from Bosch (D Jetronic) was an MPC (Manifold Pressure Controlled) system that did NOT flow constantly (it was a "batch" system opening one bank at a time triggered by an extra pair of points, and the computer modified the duration of the opening signal by a few variables.  Again, from Bendix but the 1968 VW was NOT the real pioneer - Chrysler had a bunch of prototypes running in the 50s IIRC.



Even the crude GM single and twin throttle body injectors were NOT continuous flow, but pulsed by the computer. (I am not a GM guy, so if anyone has information to the contrary, feel free to jump in/on).



Our current antique aircraft systems work, but it would be an incredible stetch to imply that they work "well".  Even the fanciest of digital port injection systems, while quite a bit better than our dribble cups, are now totally obsolete.  There is far too much difficulty getting AND MAINTAINING adequate atomisation at the low pressures typical of these systems.  By far the best technology is direct gasoline injection (if one must stoop to using gasoline as a motor fuel).  Just watch the power and performance gains (or go back 5 years and check out VWs with TFSI engines).



Before I forget:  the first production gasoline injection systems WERE indeed constant flow.  They were Bosch in D-B cars in the mid 50s (started with 300SL IIRC) using adaptations of diesel pumps at fairly high pressures (thus fantastic atomisation by standards of the day).



Just for the record, Stu Hilborn was building aircraft-like automotive injection systems long before any of the above were on the road.

_________________
AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

Discover

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 429

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:50 pm Post subject: Need 30 year update

You might want to check your history a little more as you can easily find that Bosch developed the fuel injection and mass produced it for automobiles during the 1920's way before your fellow Canadian brought injection to the market in the late 1940's

On Mar 13, 2013, at 7:41 PM, "cannuck" <pmdolan(at)sasktel.net> wrote:






Try to stay out of piddling contests, but there are a few things worth mentioning:   Bosch did NOT "invent" the CIS (Constant Injection System = K Jetronic).  ALL Bosch automotive gasoline injection systems are based on BENDIX patents - as was the Rochester system used on the early Plastic Pigs of C2 & C3 series.  These were Mass Airflow Sensing systems, with a mechanical linkage (balance beam) controlling fuel delivery in response to displacement of the airflow measuring device.



The earliest production electronic (not digital) system from Bosch (D Jetronic) was an MPC (Manifold Pressure Controlled) system that did NOT flow constantly (it was a "batch" system opening one bank at a time triggered by an extra pair of points, and the computer modified the duration of the opening signal by a few variables.  Again, from Bendix but the 1968 VW was NOT the real pioneer - Chrysler had a bunch of prototypes running in the 50s IIRC.



Even the crude GM single and twin throttle body injectors were NOT continuous flow, but pulsed by the computer. (I am not a GM guy, so if anyone has information to the contrary, feel free to jump in/on).



Our current antique aircraft systems work, but it would be an incredible stetch to imply that they work "well".  Even the fanciest of digital port injection systems, while quite a bit better than our dribble cups, are now totally obsolete.  There is far too much difficulty getting AND MAINTAINING adequate atomisation at the low pressures typical of these systems.  By far the best technology is direct gasoline injection (if one must stoop to using gasoline as a motor fuel).  Just watch the power and performance gains (or go back 5 years and check out VWs with TFSI engines).



Before I forget:  the first production gasoline injection systems WERE indeed constant flow.  They were Bosch in D-B cars in the mid 50s (started with 300SL IIRC) using adaptations of diesel pumps at fairly high pressures (thus fantastic atomisation by standards of the day).



Just for the record, Stu Hilborn was building aircraft-like automotive injection systems long before any of the above were on the road.



--------

AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=396217#396217

cannuck

Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 14
Location: SK Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: Need 30 year update

Ned:



I was referring to automotive systems.  The only fuel injection that Bosch made in the 20s was DIESEL, not gasoline.  The first gasoline injection systems were just before WWII (IIRC, in Jumo engines from Junkers).  No cars until postwar - and that was the 300SLR or I think maybe one of the GP racers before PRODUCTION stuff in the 300SL (which because they were adapted from diesel stuff were direct injection - beating everone else to the market by a half century).



I have been around a lot of pre-war D-B cars, and have never seen anything but carburetors.



Pat

_________________
AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> TeamGrumman-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum