Yes, if the bank is fully trimmed with back stick so it develops the load factor. And no if you do not trim into a zero altitude loss turn. The better way to say it is that at 2 G's the stall speed increases by 40%. 1.4 x 1.4 = 1.96, so that the V squared portion of the lift equation is satisfied - same wing, twice the lift needs 1.4 times the airspeed. But if you just bank, and allow altitude loss, no problem and no stall speed increase.
Nope, those are R9, and that is the too-short bolt. I had the same gig on an annual 2 years ago and ordered the R10 from Aircraft Spruce, so the nice to have 2 threads will show. The R9 is 9/16" long the R10 is 5/8". I bought 22 of the AN526-632R10 and became a happy camper.
Serious ground runs today, and I installed the belly radiator that has been on my hangar shelf for 2 years. Yesterday I went to over temp 180 degrees in about 5 to 6 minutes of ground run (OAT 87 degrees, cowlings off). With the belly radiator I ran for 20 minutes today and the temp stabilized after about 12 minutes at 165 or so. To support the radiator, I used 2 U-Bolts thru the cockpit floor, hooking over the diagonals that go from the center aft to the sidewall. I put the bolt thru the plywood, below the carpet where it didn't interfere at all. I used a cut-away rectangular channel mounted to the U-bolts, and then bolted the radiator to the channel. The channel is about 2" in depth, pulling the radiator down a bit for cleaner air (yes, and more drag). Silicon tubing connected the radiator to the pump output, and the return goes to the right nose radiator. I set the warp drive to 15 degrees of pitch at the tip, and today ran to full throttle in the chocks, and got 5970 RPM, which is close enough for me to take it to flight. EGT and fuel flow are working fine, so I should get good performance data for the group.High speed taxi tomorrow, if the winds behave.
Yes, if it were just the engine, I'd agree, but the prop and the gear are also considered 'major changes". I called the FSDO, they said just log the changes, reenter phase 1 for 5 hours, then log the completion with the magic words. No inspection or paperwork.
Progress, finally (spent weeks and weeks on moving, retiring, traveling and such. Finally able to spend time on my MK IV) Tasks performed in the last few months: · Removed Rotax 582 type 99, Hours 191.5 S/N 7626516,
Zadwit, how about all the broken tailwheel structure? It looks like it cracked the steel back there to sever the entire TW structure. I suspect your landing was very, very hard. Any idea of the G's on impact?
Let's look at the propeller as a wing, and recognize that the wing makes lift (thrust) by a combination of angle of attack (pitch) and airspeed (RPM). f the two, the airspeed is more influential, since the lift equation used the velocity squared. At 5500 rpm the prop blade tip is moving at 740 feet per second (with a 2.43 reduction box), at 5800 rpm it is at 780 ft/sec. The difference i thrust is about 11%, assuming the engine was producing the same power. But with the engine producing 4 HP more power at 5800, that would make the prop thrust about 15% higher at 5800.
Just to report to the group, my 582 Blue Head had 119 psi on each cylinder with 160 hours, and the next year had exactly the same reading (119 psi) with about 80 hours more time. These numbers were recorded with an electric starter.
The HACMAN leans the fuel mixture using the same method as the Rotax approved HAC system (which is illustrated in the Rotax parts manual in the accessories section), except the manual mixture valve. It basically tricks the carb bowl pressure to a lower pressure, making the carb deliver less gasoline to the metering valve (functionally the same as having a smaller main jet). I used a HACMAN on my 582 for 3 years, and it always produced clean plugs and high egts, as I flew from 11000 foot legs in Wyoming to sea level long cruises. I do think the simple mixing valve and tubing set is not worth $200 and I applaud the guys here who make it cheaper and simpler!