Rear Engine wants to Die!

[Walter Atkinson]

Ben:

If you wish to contact me directly, I think I can help you with your problem.

[rwenner]

i HAVE HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS WITH MY TURBO .....IT IS HEAT! VAPORIZING THE FUEL. THE BLAST TUBE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT SO WILL THE LOW BOOST PUMP. LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE HAVING THE SAME ISSUES, WE DON'T ALL HAVE VENT PLUGS OR BAD FUEL PUMPS OR SUCK AIR ....WE ALL HAVE HEAT

[OSCARDEUCE]

A question about flying with the aux pumps. My 1969 O2-A does not have pumps in the aux tanks, just the mains. Do later 337's have pumps in both tanks? Are you just writing off the fuel in the aux tanks?

[Ernie Martin]

I don't think any 337 had aux pumps on the auxiliary tanks; see the Fuel Management page in my backup site, www.SkymasterUS.com

However, in later models with the extended-range tanks, the extra capacity was built into the main tanks (not into separate auxiliary tanks), so that the aux pump could access all of the fuel on board.

Ernie

[OSCARDEUCE]

Ernie,
I was figuring the answer was something like that. I did visit your site a while back and took your quiz. I only missed one and went away knowing more about the fuel system. Thanks for your time and research efforts!

[Mark McConaughy]

In another thread, I referenced page 2-3/2-4 of the 1974 P337 owner's manual. This is a discussion of the operation of the auxiliary fuel pump switches. I agree with others that there is no reason for sarcasm. We are all just trying to fly airplanes.

I understand some have reservations about running the fuel pumps for extended periods and I can understand that. However, everything in the owner's manual must be approved or at the very least accepted by the FAA. Obviously, heat has something to do with the problem and altitude would only aggravate the heat issue.

I was interested to see that someone had taken the time and effort to do the research to cool the engine driven fuel pump. (I am wondering if the affected aircraft had intercoolers). However, if cooling the pump works, sounds good to me. If someone gets an STC to do that, great, if you don't like it, don't do it.

I just hate to see people taking pot shots at folks that are just trying to resolve a legitimate problem. As a not so great American once said, "can't we all just get along?". I was disappointed to see that one individual stated that he would not be visiting this forum again. I agree he did not need the abuse, but I hate to see him go.

Moreover, Kevin, if we are having a recurring problem sounds like maybe the occasional deleting of comments is not enough and stronger measures are in order. I will back you 100%.

P.S. If the individual blasts me, I guess that will confirm all I just said, (I did not name the individual) but if the person responds that will confirm what I just said.

[Walter Atkinson]

Mark:

**I understand some have reservations about running the fuel pumps for extended periods and I can understand that. **

The boost pumps are designed to run for extended periods without difficulty. It should not be a problem in any way.

**However, everything in the owner's manual must be approved or at the very least accepted by the FAA. **

That is a commonly held belief, but is misplaced. The FAA only has anything to say about items that are listed in the LIMITATIONS section. Other items are not passed on by the FAA.

**Obviously, heat has something to do with the problem and altitude would only aggravate the heat issue.**

The issue is the vapor pressure of the fuel. It generally runs in the 7 psi range but can vary a bit. This is altered by heat and greatly affected by altitude Ambient pressure). By 18k feet, the ambient pressure is 7.3 PSI. Using the boost pump can raise the vapor pressure altitude. The hotter the fuel, the lower the vapor pressure altitude.

**I was interested to see that someone had taken the time and effort to do the research to cool the engine driven fuel pump. (I am wondering if the affected aircraft had intercoolers).**

"A man without data is just another person with an unsupported opinon." If I have an unsupported opinion, I will not offer it without saying that it is unsupported by any data. As for the intercoolers, they have NO effect on this issue in any way.

I visit seven forums each day, answering questions about the specifics of engine management. I have never been exposed to the vitriolic attacks anywhere like what goes on here. That says something about a group which allows that sort of behavior. Every other forum I visit has rules of behavior which restrict personal attacks. Heated debate is welcomed and in many cases quite healthy, but personal attacks are not. Besides, the DATA is the expert. If you have no data to offer to support your opinion, it is just another unsupported opinion and that is all there is to it. I visited here because one of your members asked me to participate in an effort to correct a lot of the unsupported opinions which were being shoved down your throats by forum bullies. Much of those strong opinions are not supported by the science or the data but are shoved down your throats by your forum bullies anyway. It appears that this forum's moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce even a moderate level of civility. I don't have the time nor the inclination for that childish behavior as there are other places where the science and the data are appreciated and anyone acting as a forum bully is immediately excluded. I addition, the better forums require that people use their real names. It's a simple act that is polite. We all like to know who we are talking to. In my opinion, that is another reason this forum gets out of line and people are rude. It has been my observation that the only reason people are rude, is that they can get away with it.

If this forum were to adhere to a few simple rules of being polite and began using their real names, then I might be inclined to participate. Skymasters are really cool airplanes and there are a number of really neat people who own and fly them. 'Tis a shame that the group has allowed a few forum bullies to ruin it and shove information that is incompatible with the known science down its throat.

Good luck and if that were to change, somebody let me know and I'll consider returning for the SOLE purpose of offering educated and data-backed information on engine management.

[big al 08]

you stated that you were not going to return to this forum. well you have for the second time this month, shame on you, your word means nothing which equals that you are nothing and have no honor! on both peter's and this site you have created much discontent, shame on you, man of no honor

rick bell

[Walter Atkinson]

Based on your personal attack, nothing has changed here.

Have a nice day.

[Ernie Martin]

I attempted, without much luck, to diffuse the original spat three years ago between GMAs and the supporters of lean of peak ("LOP") operation (including Walter). Let me try to cool things again.

First, Walter returned to this forum, at least in part, because some members (Mark McConaughy among them) value his inputs and prefer that he stay. Thus, I think Big Al 08's comments above are unwarranted. Maybe he'll re-think the matter and buy my argument that some of the other members want Walter's participation.

Second, the abusive participant was warned, then edited, and finally kicked off the forum several months ago. And this was the second time, since the same happened three years ago. Therefore, Walter's comments that this forum allows bullies to interrupt scientific dialog and that the forum's moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce civility is also unwarranted.

At this year's Skymaster Meeting and Fly-In in Key West I took the "against" LOP side of that debate, so I don't see fully eye-to-eye with Walter. But I still think he's very knowledgeable about engine operation -- especially combustion matters -- and welcome his input. You don't have to agree with him, but we're all entitled to listen to what he has to say. Especially now, Walter, given the forum's moderators continuing efforts to foster civil dialog.

Ernie

P.S. I wrote this after Big Al 08's message, hoping to post before Walter read the forum, but he read it while I was writing.

[Walter Atkinson]

Ernie:

Thank you for your post.

If the position of the forum has changed concerning personal atacks, let me say that it is for the best. Maybe a few slip through as in the one two mesages above. Maybe it should be obvious that members worthy of discussion use their own names. For that I thank you personally for doing so.

Now, on to a scientific and worthy discussion. You mentioned that you have some reservations about using some mixture choices. Since you are a man of science as an engineer, I would be most interested in your views and opinions which are able to be backed by any science or research of which I may be unaware. Let's look at this from a scientific point of view. I have a lot of data to share, if you are interested.

Just what concerns you about having more air than stoichiometric in a mixture charge? Let's take them one at a time and discuss the science as it is currently appreciated.

[Mark McConaughy]

You know, I come here because I want to learn good things about skymasters from those who drive them. I currently do not have a medical though I am active in aviation. When (and if) the day comes I will be trotting over to the Skymaster Store (Commodore Aerospace) and see if Don can fix me up. I love this airplane. Yes and Don even knows the one I want. Don't you Don.

I appreciate Walter's comments, while you might not always agree with him he takes the time to research and review the facts. There are some here that are obviously not bothered by the facts and spout off with (God only knows where they get it) data and information in general that is just not true.

If you have got an opinion or a question this is the place for it. It is not the place to chastise someone just because they do not agree with you. Further, it grates me to see someone become, the only thing I call it is abusive, because of a difference of opinion. I wish those who choose to be that way would leave or be helped to leave before they run the rest of us off. However, I do not intend to leave because of one or two individuals. The vast majority of the folks here are just trying to get by. The experience level is all over the block, which is a good thing. It helps the people just starting out and gives the ones with some experience a chance to give something back.

However, giving it back does not include Card Blanche fire off both barrels when you do not agree with someone. I have to say (excluding the one or two mentioned above) I have not seen anyone ask a question or give an answer that was out of line, condescending, abusive, or whatever adjective you choose.

Kevin, I personally wish that you would deal with those people, throw them off the web site, not forever, just for the next 40 years or so. That way I will be out of the flying business one way or the other and will not have to endure more of the diatribe.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Mark McConaughy]

Walter,

Well personally I agree with you. We should use our names, at the very least it should be in your profile. I tried to get my last in before you were here.

[Mark McConaughy]

Walter,

As far as intercoolers go I've talked to several people about them and all who have them agree that the engines run cooler. I guess I figured that if you reduce the heat over all that would help. That was the reason for that question.

Thanks

Mark.

[Ernie Martin]

Walter:

I don't have anywhere near the technical skills necessary to debate this from a scientific viewpoint. Rather, my reservations (which, by the way, are limited, because there are circumstances under which I endorse LOP) are mostly operational. These have been presented at length in this forum and are summarized in the third message of this thread:

http://www.337skymaster.org/messages...&threadid=1208

On the fourth message of that thread I refer you to a Lycoming document which goes into more detail on the operational concerns.

Ernie