Jump to content

CTMI

Members
  • Content count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About CTMI

  • Rank
    Jr. Crew Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    MI
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,075 profile views
  1. Emergency landing

    Yep. Gunk in the bowl. Got it out and gained 300 rpm at WOT and it runs drastically smoother. Fixed! Thanks Roger! This forum is the BEST!
  2. Emergency landing

    Haha yes sorry I meant 218
  3. Emergency landing

    Wife and I were flying along at 5250RPM 60 psi oil pressure 218 oil temp 1360-1390 EGT fuel flow 5.2 gph @ 4.3 PSI Right cylinders were 10-15 degrees hotter than left, and the EGT on the right was about 120 degrees hotter than the left. Then in half a second, the rpm dropped to 4500 rpm and the engine was bogging. We were right near an airport and landed immediately. On the ground, immediately after landing i had one side mag drop of 100 and the other side dropped around 200 I think* a lot of adrenaline) i am certain though that when I went full throttle on the ground after landing the engine only went to 4000-4300 and was audibly "bogging" and running really rough. Then the plane sat for 30-45 minutes while I arranged a hangar for it. When I started it 30-45 minutes later, it everything has cooled substantially, and the engine ran PERFECT. 90-100 rpm mag drop, and the engine went right up to 4800 rpm and ran smooth as glass. I left the plane at that airport and have a mechanic who will drive to it. Does anyone have any idea what went wrong? I am thinking it was ignition related because of how suddenly the rpm dropped. Also I have the "barrel" type key ignition and it's fairly loose/shotty, I can actually remove the key from it when it's in the ON position. Maybe it's the key??? Then again the more I read the more I think it was maybe carb debris????? I could really use some help. on a more humorous note, the adrenaline filled landing was probably my best ever. Go figure.
  4. Fuel Injection or Carbs on my next CT?

    I wouldn't want the fuel injected motor. There's less than 500 out there. ULS is 50,000. Assuming I'm comfortable with an engine that's got a couple hundred hours, (I am) I can do a full swap for under 10k. Lots of mechanics out there that are comfortable working on them. Cheaper replacement parts too. Also interesting to see people say the fact that there's lots of carb related threads on this forum. Oddly that's an asset not a liability. The "issues" which EVERY ENGINE WILL HAVE are well quantified, tracked, discussed and thus easily identified and remedied in the ULS. The fuel injected motors aren't that well known, and their "issues" are still being discovered. There might not be a thread that's all about the problem you are facing. You might be the first. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" i also really liked the comment about the fuel efficiency benefit being not so relevant when we consider we are already at 5 gal/hr with $2.90/gal pump gas. I think they call that the marginal benefit curve. I guess I don't think the marginal benefit is worth the marginal cost either. It's already so dang cheap..... Then again maybe my bias is because I just can't afford one! On another note I just passed 130 CTSW hours in 9 months of ownership. Runs like a top and I'm loving every minute!
  5. Fuel Trailer

    LOL crosswind landings could get tricky
  6. Fuel Trailer

    Oh, that's an hour away. I'll bring it to you if you want it.
  7. Fuel Trailer

    West side. Muskegon, MI. Thanks for the kind words everyone!
  8. Fuel Trailer

    Just built this fuel trailer. I had a lot of fun building it and thought I'd build another if someone wants to buy this one. I've put about 50 gallons through it for testing. It's ready to go. Here's the highlights: aluminum DOT certified tank, 50 gallons fully enclosed battery, handle, fuel filters and hose for clean look. rear compartment has gas spring assist, rubber gaskets where lines come though and a three point latch system for a watertight and nearly airtight seal. all diamond plate body Retracting grounding cable 20 feet hose automatic nozzle voltmeter 30amp breaker and switch built in charger group 27 battery (good for 2600 gallons of pumped fuel per charge) GPI 15 GPM pump with 1 year replacement warranty redeemable at any tractor supply, that's on top of manufacturer's warranty. dual dual goldenrod fuel filters, one is water block one is for particulates to 10 microns brand new trailer front wheel for easy moving $2800, will deliver or make arrangements for delivery for fee, trailer is in Michigan. PM if interested. no more cans.
  9. Ok I have an update even though I really am not worried about this being anything more than a minor paint blemish, since: 1. There's no blisters 2. There's no cracks 3. There's no softness 4. There's no sound change 5. It's only visible within a 5 degree range of angle and only in certain light I decided to employ a hugely overboard test. I was able to borrow a specialized tool from a friend who works in the marine industry. The tool is a "moisture meter" which is able to detect and give readings of relative moisture from within a laminate structure, to detect delamination and/or core breakdown and water intrusion. After playing with the settings (our carbon layer is quite thin relative to most composite layups) I was able to get it to the point where it would, with great accuracy, identify exactly where I was holding a damp towel on the far inner side of the empennage. Since the strength of the reading is a function of moisture content AND proximity, I figured if it could identify a lightly damp rag on the FAR side of the layup, it would certainly identify moisture from WITHIN the layup. Long story short? It's dry as a bone. It it did give a "blip" solely under the fuel tanks, but that happened everywhere under the tanks and on both wings so I'm guessing it was faintly detecting the fuel in the tanks. -I'm going stop worrying about it and focus on FLYING! Thanks everyone for the great info!
  10. When I tap test it, it makes no appreciably different sound than elsewhere so that's good I guess.
  11. There's an oval shaped area on the bottom side of my right wing whose perimeter has cloudy paint, it's textured and makes a sound when you drag your nail across it. It almost looks like orange peel but the location and shape gives me concern. The same phenomenon is present near the fill cap on the top side of the wing only much much smaller. Strangely the paint is for the most part, not effected inside the rings, there it is still shiny, but the permiter is cloudy rough and doesn't reflect. Its hard to see it and I did as best I could with pictures. I've been keeping an eye on it for months and it hasn't changed size or shape but it's just driving me nuts. What is it and should I try buffing it out?
  12. Best glue?

    Oh! That's great news and much easier. I'll go look at it and try that. Thankyou!!!
  13. I would identify that the sight tubes did not corroborate what the dynon or my watch said, and I would act under the assumption that the worst indicator was the correct one and land my plane. I would hope that's what anyone would do, even if the roles were reversed (sight tube says 10 but watch/dynon says 1. Agreed, it was just an illustration. I'm just saying there are limitations to the sight tube functionality as a tool for total quantity. They CAN absolutely be accurate. Im just saying they rely on alot of variables being in control to be accurate. Didnt say that. wowsers. Hey who here uses the AOA function on their Dynon EFIS?
  14. To be clear, i do use the sight tubes to corroborate what the dynon says. I agree that the BEST fuel guage is stopwatch, which, by the way, is all that the dynon really is. It just also does the simple multiplication for you. Even with the Dynon, i use a stopwatch (flight timer on the dynon) and mental math to verify the dynon, in case the fuel flow rate is erroneous. The tools for determining fuel levels and distribution are: 1. the stick 2. the dynon 3. the tubes 4. the watch i use all of them in one capacity or another, i just happen to prefer to use specific ones as my primary, "at a glance" tool. just to play devils advocate, how would you determine how much fuel you had if: amount of fuel > 21 gallons? How do you determine whether you have 22 gallons or 32 gallons? If you had a headwind you didn't anticipate, and had a long stretch in front of you with no airports, knowing if you have 22 or 32 gallons could be the difference between landing on a runway or in a forest. The tubes wont tell you. That's not a great primary fuel gauge. To continue that scenario, if your destination is in the GPS the dynon will tell you how much you'll have left when you get there. That's a pretty valuable resource. Maybe its just a personal preference or a generational thing (under 30 here) but i'd rather use a precise instrument (computers are precise) to gather precise numbers, and use the rough tool (cuz hey, you aren't getting down to the decimal point with the fuel tubes) to get a rough verification, rather than vice versa. i really don't want to do a bunch of mental math while staring at the tubes to determine what the mean point that the fuel is bouncing above and below is to figure out how much gas i got. i'd rather get the number off the screen and just check if the tubes are consistent enough with that to rule out a computer malfunction. Then when i'm looking at them i'm just primarily (not solely) concerned with whether they are roughly EQUAL. the only reason i brought this up actually is because this thread is peppered with statements like "the tube said i had 8 gallons" and i just want to highlight that the fuel amount that the tube indicates is highly conditional. The dynon is much less conditional. (still fallible however) i also would note that Buckaroo had to put his plane down in a field because of fuel starvation and he was NOT using the fuel management computer that his plane is equipped with. He is clearly an OUTSTANDING pilot and his ability to fly his plane is beyond phenomenal, but that doesn't mean he, and other pilots, shouldn't be aware of and have every tool available to him/them at their disposal. Would Buckaroo have had a different result if he had had his fuel levels presented to him down to the decimal point, available at a glance throughout his flight? Would he have refueled? Or perhaps would the decreased workload, (no staring at the tubes and doing mental math) allowed him to focus on coordination of the plane for the sake of fuel distribution? Who knows. What i do know is that i just cant justify NOT using this resource. To use the fuel computer hit one of the 3 center soft keys on the EMS, navigate to fuel, and use the selections to ZERO out your fuel amount and ADD fuel to the total as needed, the amount you add you gather from dipping the tanks. Enter waypoint on the GPS to see how much fuel you'll have when you get there at your given burn rate.
  15. And if there's no turbulence, and if your ball is mounted level, and if your mushroom is mounted level, and if the fuel in the tanks is not sloshing back and forth. That's 9 "ifs." That's a lot of ifs. i do not rely on the sight tubes to tell me how much fuel I have onboard, I just use them to tell me WHERE the fuel is. The dynon, with simple arithmetic as a backup is a far more precise instrument. It's worth noting however that mr baker knows about 1000 times more than I do about these planes. But I do have fresh experience with being new to this, and the reduction of variables affecting my accurate understanding of fuel quantity and management reduces my workload and increases accuracy and my safety. Preference only
×