X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTP id 1022690 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:49:05 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.198.39; envelope-from=n3773@comcast.net Received: from rv8 (c-24-21-140-241.hsd1.or.comcast.net[24.21.140.241]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2005062703481401500cu311e>; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:48:19 +0000 Message-ID: <005301c57acb$0e2a9a70$f18c1518@rv8> Reply-To: "kevin lane" From: "kevin lane" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: amphib thoughts Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:39:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 new engine mount, new engine, constant speed prop, floats.....don't need to actually do the math, since I have 160hp FP. Kevin Lane Portland, OR e-mail-> n3773@comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "rijakits" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:50 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: amphib thoughts > Somewhere on Van's site you see a RV-6 on floats. > Might not be that much work after all! > > Thomas J. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kevin lane" > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 7:35 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] amphib thoughts > > >> I am not flying my -6A as extensively as I used to and have been having >> crazy thoughts, probably from exposure to Rusty, of trading in on an > amphib. >> I was looking at the Sea Ray then remembered that Mr Coot himself lives >> right across the river from me. Ken, give me a call if you would please. >> You can bring me up to par on what to look for and what to avoid. I > checked >> into putting the -6A on floats, but there are too many changes to be >> worth >> it. I think I want a completed project since I have enough going trying > to >> build the -8. If you guys have comments on this idea I'd would like to > hear >> them. I keep reading about how much fun float planes can be. I guess I > can >> handle the 80 mph until the -8 is completed. >> Kevin Lane Portland, OR (503) 233-1818 >> e-mail-> n3773@comcast.net >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "al p wick" >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" >> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:02 PM >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Coolant Leak >> >> >> > Actually, I think the opposite is true. I understand the auto approach > is >> > to NOT have any air in the cooling system. I don't recall the details >> > of >> > their reasoning. In my experience, the safety advantage of cup-o-air is >> > much more significant. >> > BTW, it's probably more like 2 cups. The goal is to have enough air >> > cushion to prevent pressure from reaching cap rating. When you include >> > coolant temp, fluid level, and pressure info, it really improves your >> > understanding of how your system is behaving. >> > >> > If you ever open your car radiator and find air at top, it indicates a >> > problem with your cooling system. >> > >> > >> > >> > -al wick >> > Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 >> > N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon >> > Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design > info: >> > http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:15:14 -0400 "Ian Dewhirst" >> > writes: >> >> Al, your experience with the value of having an air cushion is >> >> supported by >> >> every automotive cooling system that I have ever seen (many). >> >> Typically >> >> autos use either a pressure cap and expansion tank that is not >> >> filled to the >> >> top, or an overflow bottle into which coolant is expelled and >> >> recovered. I >> >> get the impression that some people assume that these overflow style >> >> systems >> >> contain no vapour when cold, I don't think that assumption is >> >> correct. The >> >> overflow systems all have expansion capacity built into the top of >> >> the >> >> radiator, or some other part of the cooling system they are never >> >> completely >> >> filled with coolant. The bigger the cooling system the greater the >> >> volume >> >> of vapour stored cold. >> >> >> >> -- Ian >> >> >> >> (GM, Chrysler, and Ford are not trying to piss you off with those >> >> side >> >> mounted radiator caps.. ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Rotary motors in aircraft >> >> [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]On >> >> Behalf Of al p wick >> >> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:58 AM >> >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Coolant Leak >> >> >> >> >> >> My focus is on flight safety. I found great value to having appx. 1 >> >> cup >> >> of air at the top of my cooling system.... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> >> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> >> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html