|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

01-23-2009, 06:34 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,484
|
|
I often wonder about some of the posted gains in the book... like Microlon. I just can't see that happening. FWIW, the side-by-sides are already fastbacks...
__________________
Stephen Samuelian, CFII, A&P IA, CTO
RV4 wing in Jig @ KPOC
RV7 emp built
|

01-23-2009, 07:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 33
|
|
I'm building a Mustang II and I can vouch that the wing is very thin in comparison to anything other than the canard on a long ez. Not only is it thin but it is also tapered giving it a much shorter chord at it's outer reaches. It is also thinner at it's outer reaches than it is at the wing root. That's less drag than what a constant chord wing produces, but how much less. I don't know.
I read the Kent Paser book and was astounded by the performance improvements that resulted from his mods. In the area of fuel economy his addition of reversion cones in the beginning of the header exhaust tubes had the biggest effect. I forget the numbers but when I first read it I was very surprised that that one mod could produce that much fuel savings. If you read the book you'll find the claimed performance improvements are very difficult to challenge because aircraft performance was carefully measured prior to and after each mod was done. It's been awhile since I read it but I think Paser himself says he had trouble believing some of the data at first sight.
|

01-23-2009, 10:17 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,587
|
|
Microlon comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by osxuser
I often wonder about some of the posted gains in the book... like Microlon. I just can't see that happening. FWIW, the side-by-sides are already fastbacks...
|
Notwithstanding Kent's well regarded testing, I also have trouble with this one. Just for the sake of easy math, a 6 mph gain on 200 mph is 3%. That means that the hp would have to increase by about 1.03 to the third power or 9.3%. If Microlon produced a 9.3% increase in net HP at the top end then I suspect there was something wrong with that engine to begin with. Also, Microlon's claims to be an engine treatment as opposed to an oil modifier are absurd. If you removed almost all the friction in a well lubed engine running at rated HP you would likely not see this kind of gain. A 3-5% gain in max HP would be very good and I doubt that Microlon would do it.
FWIW, I once did extensive research and testing on Teflon oil additives for cars. Microlon, IMHO, is junk. It has large, unevenly sized particles which do not resist Teflon's tendency to clump; it won't stay in suspension. DuPont has been very clear that, in general, Teflon oil additives don't work. There is one, however, that they had to admit in writing "might" work.
Tufoil, a little known additive, however, is excellent. Google for web site. Multiple patents, Guiness Book of Records, scientific testing, etc. HOWEVER, Microlon is FAA approved and Tufoil is not and will not be. The inventor/manufacturer of Tufoil flies a Bonanza and knows that the economics are just not there to produce a low-ash version for aircraft. I've discussed it with him more than once. You can PM me if you want to discuss my experiences with Tufoil in experimental aircraft or in cars and trucks. I don't want to say more about it in public. There is some potential there.
__________________
H. Evan's RV-7A N17HH 240+ hours
"We can lift ourselves out of ignorance, we can find ourselves as creatures of excellence and intelligence and skill. We can be free! We can learn to fly!" -J.L. Seagull
Paid $25.00 "dues" net of PayPal cost for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 (December).
This airplane is for sale: see website. my website
|

01-24-2009, 05:35 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 465
|
|
Perhaps one can dispute a discrepancy with one individual modification or more. Some of his methods for testing the Microlon were maybe not the most idea testing conditions. He says he can?t verify all of the claims the manufacturer makes of it, but in his book his felt quite comfortable about his data which showed an addition of 6 mph increase. This aspect should be able to have others getting similar results too, I would think. It?s certainly worth looking more into it, before one committed to this part.
But I do think it would become difficult to fudge the final numbers of all of his modifications because of results he has got by entering his Mustang in many popular contests.
wj
|

01-25-2009, 08:54 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,484
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrongway john
Perhaps one can dispute a discrepancy with one individual modification or more. Some of his methods for testing the Microlon were maybe not the most idea testing conditions. He says he can?t verify all of the claims the manufacturer makes of it, but in his book his felt quite comfortable about his data which showed an addition of 6 mph increase. This aspect should be able to have others getting similar results too, I would think. It?s certainly worth looking more into it, before one committed to this part.
But I do think it would become difficult to fudge the final numbers of all of his modifications because of results he has got by entering his Mustang in many popular contests.
wj
|
Oh I have no doubt of that, I've been reading and re-reading the book, and have make some modifications to some aircraft based on his research. Overall, he definitely made astounding improvements to the design, but I don't think that RV's have as many flaws at the original Mustang II or as much potential for gain because of the high lift wing.
__________________
Stephen Samuelian, CFII, A&P IA, CTO
RV4 wing in Jig @ KPOC
RV7 emp built
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:16 AM.
|