Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:50:42 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2640807@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.110.12.21; envelope-from=walter@advancedpilot.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
In-Reply-To: <list-2638516@logan.com>
References: <list-2638516@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Walter Atkinson <walter@advancedpilot.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: water ingestion in rain and engine stoppage

Excellent reasoning.  That's what I was looking for.

Walter


On Jan 9, 2008, at 8:10 PM, dskeele@bellsouth.net wrote:

Walter A.,

      Your post on REMOVING  the water entering the carb airstream,  
does depend on the configueration.  In my NA engine, I think that the  
main reason for carb heat at this point ( heavy rain ) is to pull  
carb air from inside the cowling, obviously reducing the amount of  
water available to the airstream and if heated sufficiently will  
prevent  ice in the cooler throat of the carb, at partial throttle.

      A couple of small holes at the rear of the carb air intake box  
is of some help in diverting water or over primed gas from an  
aluminum intake box.  The "plastic"box supplied does support  
combustion, but that is another story..  Regards   Don Skeele  N320J

-------------- Original message from Walter Atkinson  
<walter@advancedpilot.com>: --------------


 > OK, anybody have a plausible theory on how adding carb heat will
 > REMOVE the water? Just making it vapor makes it combustible???
 >
 >
 >
 > Walter
 >
 >
 >
 > On Jan 9, 2008, at 8:13 AM, Tom Gourley wrote:
 >
 > "the use of carburettor heat in heavy rain is recommended both to
 > prevent build of of carby ice and to avoid engine stoppage"
 >
 > I recall reading in some flying magazine article about having to use
 > carb heat (seems like it was partial carb heat) in a C172 during
 > heavy rain. If my memory is correct (not necessarily guaranteed)
 > that was for a specific C172 model and engine combination. Later
 > models of the C172 did not have this recommendatio n. I don't
 > remember ever seeing a similar recommendation in the Lycoming O-320
 > or O-360 powered Pipers or Grummans that I flew. Maybe I should look
 > through the old POHs that I have in my library.
 >
 > Tom Gourley
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/
 > List.html
 >
 >
 > --
 > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/ 
List.html