Jump to content

Terry

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Terry

  1. I am in Three Rivers. I built the 2nd Vari-Eze to fly in Michigan back in the 70's. I sold that to buy a 172 for the kids to learn in and I moved to a private grass strip so the VE wasn't a viable airplane for me. I am in the planning stages for a modified Long-Ez. Nothing radical or that has not been done already. We have a Long and A Velocity based at Three Rivers, a velocity and an Aero Canard in process in the Kazoo EAA chapter 221. If you get to the Kazoo area give me a call we'll do coffee or somthing. PM me at CustomAire@gmail and I'll give you my cell #.

  2. The purpose of the fuel tank screen is to prevent the fuel line from getting plugged so that screen should be fairly coarse. All certified airplanes have a screen of about 1/8th to 3/16th mesh size. It is basically there to catch the big stuff that would plug the fuel line or valves and such. The strainer and other down stream filters that can be easily cleaned catch the fine stuff.

    Terry

  3. My guess would be an O-290. I think all the narrow deck O-320's had plates under the cylinder dold down nuts. To be sure, pull a rocker cover, if it has adjustable rocker arms then it is a 290. If not then a 320. I'm betting on a 290.

    Terry

    EAA 221 T.C. A&P

  4. Ok, I can't resist, but blaming lawyers for lawsuit ABUSE, is like blaming guns for murder. Someone had to pick up the gun and shoot. In your case, the WIDOW....you know, the person with a DEAD spouse.....AND, should your really want someone to BLAME, you gotta put that on JURORS, IMAO...they are the ones that actually choose the outcome. The winning lawyer just made a more persuasive (I did not say better) argument...exactly as he/she should.

     

    I do not think that Deltahawks delays are sole based on fear of litigation. Perhaps, maybe, they just want a well develped product. If they get that, hopefully the concern of lawsuites is minimized. Remember, frivolous lawsuites are already illegal. However, as we know, that does not prevent some from perusing them and this in itself can be very expensive.

     

    I too am appauled when a jury delivers a verdict that blames a manufacturer as responsible for a part that they know did not fail...simply due to "deep pockets. :(

     

    As a lawyer I will not just allow the misguieded commentary. I do not expect to change your mine....but I will fight to the death for your right to be wrong:) . Lawyer bashing has become much too cavalier as of late, I am dissappointed at the lazy thinking from which it comes.

     

    I am certain, you do not mean to think in this simple of terms. YES, I am a lawyer and proud of the fact, even though I transitioned to a career as a cop a few years ago to fullfill my other career ambition/dream. I am proud of both and find them rewarding.

     

    FWIW.

     

    All the best,

     

    Cpl Christopher Barber, JD

     

    You are right CBarber

    I see this as a 5 point failure

    1. The people that are not willing to accept the responsibility and consequences of their actions.

    2. The lawyers that will litigate for any cause if they make money at it. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

    3. Judges that will listen to this crap. They can and have dismissed frivolous litigation.

    4. Defendants that will settle out of court "because it is cheaper".

    5. The last and most tragic THE PEOPLE. The juries don't under stand that these judgments cost us all in the end.

    If there is negligence then by all means hold the guilty accountable.

    All of life has some risk. Just because someone takes more risk than they should doesn’t mean someone else should pay.

  5. IAW AC43.13-1B Table 7-1. 1/4-28 (AN4-XX) bolt 50 to 70 INCH pounds (4.2 to 5.3 foot pounds) 100 INCH pounds (8.3 foot pounds) MAX. This is on the FAA.GOV web site but every one building/working on an airplane should have a paper copy. Much good stuff in there.

    Terry

  6. I think the throttle body for a IO360 would be to large to meter properly on a O235 and the nozzles would also be to big. These people can steer you in the right direction www.airflowperformance.com/

    As far as the poor airflow distribution goes, balanced fuel nozzles such as those from GAMI would likely take care of that.

    Terry

  7. No such thing as C65 just A65.

    A65 can be converted to A75

    A75 is not the same as C75

    “A” series cannot be converted to “C” series

    Some C75 can go C85

    Some C85 can go C90

    Some C90 can go O200

    Not all conversions that are physically doable are economically feasible e.g. C85 to O200, case, crank & pistons are different.

    Not all conversions that are physically doable are TCM or STC supported, not that important with experimental but if you wanted/needed to sell that would have an effect on resalablity and value.

    TCDS on the FAA web site is a good source of info.

    Terry

  8. IO720 = 720 cubic inches, 400 horsepower, 8 cylinders, about 600 pounds, twice as long as an IO360, ueses twice as much fuel as an IO360.

    Check the TCDS on faa.gov for more details

  9. There is bosses on the accessory case specificly for the oil cooler. One below the filter boss and one above the filter boss just below the crankcase breather outlet. Buy an overhaul manual and a parts manual for your engine. there is a ton of information in them to help you install and maintain your engine.

  10. I don't know how much freedom you have in South Africa to modify things but here is the extent of my knowledge.

    This is a link to the type certificate data sheet for your engine.

    http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/b531b405c2d5097a8525670e0052caa6/$FILE/E16ea.pdf

    My fist choice would to fix the cooling issues and use the engine with the turbo. Your installation is very tight and you need to be certain you are not putting to much heat in your airframe. The only way to be sure is to put temperature sensors on the airframe and measure the temperatures. To run with out a turbo you need to change the pistons to the 8.7 compression ratio from a normally aspirated ANGLE valve IO360 and turn the rpm to 2700. The internals of this engine are turned to 2700 rpm in other applications. Then you should have 200 sea-level horsepower. Also the fuel injection nozzles need to be changed to the normally aspirated type and the fuel injection servo may need to be recalibrated. You would need to contact an overhaul shop to determine that. Please verify all advise you get with with people that do this stuff for a living. Be carfull and be safe

    Terry

  11. Don't fly that engine with out the turbo. It needs 40 inches of manifold pressure to make 210 HP. That engine has a 7.3 to 1 compression ratio. The normally aspirated IO360 has a 8.7 to 1 compression ratio. With out the turbo that engine likely is making 160 to 170 HP at sea level. At 5000 feet msl it is likely making 130 to 140 hp. I have worked on this engine in the Aero Commander 112TC, it needs lots of air thru large oil cooler to control the oil temperature.

  12. I have never seen pressurized mags on an O-200. Pressuried mags normaly are forund on turbocharged engines. If you do have a turbo there needs to be a hose runnung from the turbo duct before the throttle to the mags.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information