aaronk25

It's all of 5kts. But the higher the altitude (m.p.) the less speed return. Actually somewhere around 14k D.A. It actually returns the same speed as pre-install and at 17k it's a few knots slower. Maybe you can explain that? The largest returns are at 4K and exponential higher at lower altitude. It's laying down right around 167-168kts at 3.5-4K and I couldn't break 160-161kts pre-install. At higher M.P. This really shines. I'm not sure why they advertise it as "optimized at higher altitudes" as I think that's kind of misleading. It really gives it some lungs down low and yep I was guessing 30hp.

The power flow isn't any noise reduction inside than the stock exhaust best I can tell. P.f. Is worth 5kts or so maybe more down below 9k. And yes only a kt or so is free the rest comes of the kts require a little more fuel. The best thing about the power flow it lowers CHT by 20-30f and allows the choice to use more available h.p. in cruise should it be desired.

Fwiw landing on the belly actually is about a medium-soft landing. Most newbies will land a lot harder transitioning. Don't ask how I know. Pretty uneventful. I didn't even get out of the plane cause it was 0-f outside. Fix the belly new engine and prop good to go.....no big deal.

Ha! Isnt everything always "for sale"?

Is it for sale????

That my friends would make the ultimate J!!!

The Tornado Alley guys bought the cardinal t.n. STC from a 3rd party then modified it to the latest and greatest turbo and intercooler. That system on a J would rock and turn 190kts at altitude all day long!

I agree with bluehighwayflyer, temps should be very easy to keep in check. Actually at that power setting all gauges are bottom of he green on my J. Do some baffle work if your temps are high, these are older planes and sometimes even perfect baffles need tweaking. Do some searches on this site to learn how to adjust (trim, bend) baffles to lower the hot trouble cylinders. On the 172 you never knew how hot it was cause most don't have cht instrumentation, if you did have it you would find your 172 runs 400-425cht on climb. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Typical lycoming. Ya a lot of us have been there. Sorry for this. Anyone heard of the rotax doing this? I have yet to hear of it!

At 200rop, even 100rop or 50lop auto fuel will run great even at higher chts. The only issue I've seen is around 20rop the mixture is almost vulnerable to staring to burn before the spark. All other mixtures make it more stable and allow for higher cht operation. I've seen 400cht mixture where the only change implemented was going to full rich immediately dropped the chts. The critical part of the STC would be putting fuel pumps I the tanks, like autos. I'm not sure if vapor lock on summer blend fuel is even a issue any more. The gas today resembles more of the quality a of aviation fuel than the car gas of 20 years ago when vapor pressures were high. I only meant to sound a bit cautious or warning as I'd hate to say somthing then someone takes the liberal view of the intent and gets hurt. Auto fuel would also let us run full synthetic oils and most likely extend our oil change intervals! Wish it could happen!

Oh and you LOPers your creating higher NOx emissions than those running at peak egt (stoichiometric mixture). Honda made some engines that ran in a lean mode, actually lean of peak several years back but the EPA NOx limits make this a no more. Basically your engine tuning mpg increasing chips for gas engines make the engine run LOP during light engine loads, that's why they also won't pass a emissions test.

Ok about the factory we manufacture exterior walls for high rise buildings. I guess we don't really need them but it sure would be nice to was a car or truck inside occasionally. On the VW question www.kermatdi.com makes "off road" EGR delete kits. Also advancing timing on injection pump creates more power (cylinder pressure) and better mpg at the expense of higher Nox. Actually on the newer Jetta diesels the EGR is difficult to delete but the EGR can in some cases help mpg. Basically the factory used to much boost (lean mixture) at light highway engine cruising loads which hurts MPG. Keep in mind that turbo boost isn't free, yes a turbo is more efficient than a supercharger but the turbo boost still increases back pressure which robs power by putting resistance against the piston on the exhaust stroke. Not enough boost make a rich condition (sooty) just like a rich airplane engine, that's bad too. A happy medium is best for mpg, but fails a emission test. For big power lots of boost lots of fuel moderate timing advance on injection pump. For economy, light boost, lots and lots of timing advance ....better mpg For emissions cruising down highway, lots of boost, moderate to low timing, pass emission mpg at 42ish vs mid 50's

EPA stopped by our office last year and informed us that we can't have floor drains that drain to daylight in our production facility unless they drain into a explosion proof holding bin to be pumped later! They have said any building that has the room to store 6 or more automobiles inside, regardless if the building has a door large enough to allow vehicles inside can not have floor drains that drain to daylight. This group is reduculis. So now we have to pour concrete down our drains to seal them. We can't even wash down our floors with water. What a joke.

As long as we're talking about 3rd persons "friends" in other threads. I'd like to point out I have a friend who deleted the EGR and did other naughty emission modifications and the Vw now gets 55mpg. Up from mid 40s. Good stuff!

Don't get me started about lycoming and what happens when they delivery poor quality replacement parts (camshaft) that lasts 400 hours and 2.5years which necessitates a overhaul. Oh by the way mr. Customer you are 6 months beyond the warranty period. Screw you. Lycoming is a terrible company, in my opinion. Outdated engines.

I wouldn't worry about it. If it was at 140 that's different. My J runs 165 in winter.

What about aircraft paint stripper I've seen it used before to clean this off?

I'd love to have a mogas STC. I wish we had the option of going upto that motor in a J. It all come down to how much HP can be squeezed out of a cylinder. The J puts out 50hp per cylinder compared to 37.5hp. There is a slight difference in cubic inch size but it's a good representation.

Mpg is exactly the same but once over approx 70% power it take more mogas to make the same speed, but this is only a 30 second sample as chts rise quickly. You know this but others may not; autos run at a cht temp of 190-210f. Airplanes at 280-4xx. I can tell you that auto fuel runs good at lean power settings ex (peak egt or lop or even 20rop,) all day long at 55%, but when approaching 65% power it needs to be peak to lean of peak to not, let say experience rapid cht rise. If running at 75%-80% better be at 40-50lop. At those numbers chts will remain level and consistent. If outside of those perimeters temps exponentially increase. I doubted the pilot and he actually put the mixture in the red box and I could hear a faint yet detectable da..da.da at the rate of a machine gun, but quieter at the same time egt dropped and cht rose rapidly. Egt drops because the fuel started burning sooner so the exhaust sensor picked up less heat. I'm sure the internal surfaces inside the cylinder wall and piston, spark plug assembly are a lot hotter than the cht probe is picking up even at the start of the following intake stroke. All I can tell you is you can do anything you want with the mixture even run in the middle of the redbox and the temps will rise relevativly slowly like they would with 100ll but as soon as you get to 355-360cht the rate in which the chts rise is a lot faster and triples in rate by the time it gets to 400 and at that point, inside the cockpit you can here it pinging.

You will melt a piston if you let temps get over 360d in a io360 with 8.7 to one compression Pistons if you don't know what your doing. I've rode in a experimental that has the same 200hp lycoming as a J model. It's amazing how sensitive the engine is to small mixture adjustments. Absolutely positively you will 100% melt a piston if it is flown with even a little disregard to the "Red box" whe operating on mogas. Remember mogas is on a octane research scal not motor scale. If 91 octane (reasearch)mogas was compared to 100ll it would be around 86 octane. Basically what happens when at 70% power is 100ll might have chts around let say 330 and mogas will be at 350. The problem is and I've witnessed it, mogas is already starting to pre-ignite ahead of the spark but only very lightly which is why the chts are slightly elevated compared to 100ll. This is harmless and most modern auto engines run in the exact same mode trying to extract maximum mileage from the fuel. Let say your running at 350cht (auto fuel) 9.6gph 70% power right at peak egt and the mixture richens up to 10gph and it put the engine at 15rop. In a minuet the chts will be at 360 another min they will be at 390 another minuet they at 425 and I'm guessing from this point, but you get the picture. If the same enriching was done with 100ll chts might climb 20d the stay put. The problem is the harder the engine is run the more residual heat left over in the cylinder from the last power stroke. Auto fuel just can withstand partially igniting before the spark. Ones it starts prematurely igniting a tremendous amount of heat is generated which leaves the piston and cylinder hotter for the next batch of fuel to ignite even sooner. At this point it's not a run away where it will "diesel" or completely ignite without a spark but you a couple mins away from that. Now if the cht rise is recognized quickly going 50lop or 150 or more rop stops it immediately. But even with a jpi 830 that flashes there are many distractions and quite frankly more important pilot duties to be monitoring than starting at you engine monitor. The other 180hp engines that are stcd are fine as they just don't create as much heat soak in regards to internal components so auto fuel is ok per stc. The reason I believe we don't have auto fuel is the FAA making it cost prohibitive. All we need is liquid cooled cylinder heads and dis redundant in tank fuel pumps and then we could use 87 octane and knock sensors. Oh well.....

I'm not sure anyone here out right said that they have chosen to run a illegal fuel so I think its incorrect to state that someone else here is doing such. Shadrach brought up some good points. The problem is how do you know you won't have a problem. Today's gas hasn't been thought tested and the stuff of the past failed in almost any airplane that didn't have a high wing positive pressure set up back when peterson was actively researching candidate planes such as Mooney. There is 3 main issues and the 3rd is the least of my concern. 1. Vapor lock-All fuel will boil. Altitude and heat both promote boiling and at a high enough altitude and/or temp they will boil. And yes 100ll will boil to but it takes alot of temperature to do it. Picture this. Your plane has been sitting on the ramp in the sun and the fuel in the tanks is 100 degrees and you take off loaded with guests to gross weight so the angle of attack is greater and the nose of the plane is high. Lets take a break and see if you know how your fuel gets to the motor. In your car it gets pushed out of the fuel tank to the motor via a pump so the fuel has pressure applied to it which lowers its boiling point. Did you ever find your fuel pump in your airplane wing? Thats right you haven't cause it aint there. So back to climbing out with nose up and a hot load of auto fuel. The only way to get fuel to the nose of the plane, which now is a couple or several feet higher than the fuel level in the tanks is to suck it out. When fuel is sucked out do you think the pressure on the fuel increase which lessens the chance of boiling or do you think it decreases pressure and increases the chance? Thats right the way the fuel delivery system in these planes actually increases the chance of fuel boiling in the lines which is what vapor lock is. How cool would it be if the engine quit at 500 agl........I get it this is for cruse only so don't ever get the tanks mixed up....ya ...right.... 100ll is some pretty awesome stuff and so awesome that the cold start issues folks have in the winter is directly related to the 100ll cause it is difficult to get it to turn into vapor when the temperature is low but the trade off is that it shouldn't vapor lock when hot. 2. Octane- The auto ignition temp of premium motor fuel is somewhere between 360-420ish....if memory serves me correctly and 100ll is like 600 or 700 degress. Anyway there is a hell of a difference between the two and unless your adjusting cowl flaps AND have a accurate every-cylinder-cht monitor and can catch it quickly with in 20 seconds if the fuel does start to pre-ignite, if any of these factors are missing there is a good chance you may turn your engine into a glob of molten metal which most likely won't aid you in landing safely. 3. There is different standards in auto fuel compared to 100ll.----This is true but I think this is the least of your worries as how many times has your car shut off driving down the road because the fuel was poor or water saturated? None-most likely. Do I think that Mogas can be operated on safely? Yes, but what if something is wrong with the plane and you make a off field landing and a passenger gets hurt? The negligence will be off the scale. I also have my doubts that someones first post on this forum, apparently looking for others to endorse their activity as "OK to do" cause others do it hardly has the capability or knowledge of fuel volatility/octane, test for ethanol ect to be experimenting. Stick with 100ll. And yes your insurance will still cover you even if you do run the wrong fuel cause insurance also cover stupidity......

The experimental guys do this all the time in that same engine timed at 25 degrees. They find straight 91 (research scale) octane runs absolutely fine given chts are under 360, preferably 350. The problem comes if the cooling isn't set up right to keep the chts down and they get above 360 they continue to go up until a piston gets melted. With modern multipoint cht sensors operating, at least for the "cruise" portion of flight is very possible, however the FAA thinks they no best so they don't allow it. Others also fly LOP, on auto fuel all day long. Just like 100ll is actually way cooler chts to run at peak or LOP. If timing was reduced to 20d, I'd wage a bet that staying out of the "redbox" alone would most likely eliminate a destructive condition all together.

Yep and I had a brand new "lycoming factory new" cam shaft fail in 2.5 years and 400 hours. Lycoming lost my business forever. Reground cams are the way to go at least until lycoming proves their committed to producing or should I say purchasing components that actually last. Several shops I spoke with perfect regroups cam and lifters due to the component being proven.

500fpm with the wife on board or just short of Vne if solo......

Could you have a gauge going bad? Or s loose wire? Just curious about the little things?