John,

Performance charts for intercooled engines was a part of my POH. I didn't keep a copy when I sold my A*, no need to. Very little change from non-intercooled, slightly slower down low and the ability to operate higher and slightly faster. The advantage is that they simply remove the issue of detonation and high operating temps except for turbos when trying to run LOP, which I did not.

My numbers paralleled Paul's.

Jg

John,

Performance charts for intercooled engines was a part of my POH. I didn't keep a copy when I sold my A*, no need to. Very little change from non-intercooled, slightly slower down low and the ability to operate higher and slightly faster. The advantage is that they simply remove the issue of detonation and high operating temps except for turbos when trying to run LOP, which I did not.

My numbers paralleled Paul's.

Jg

John,
Here is the chart for an intercooled 601P Aerostar. Also attached is the cruise performance at FL250 for the stock Aerostar. When you use the stock performance chart you see in note 2 "When operating at power settings within the boxes, do not lean below fuel flows shown..." This is for detonation prevention. Comparing the max cruise power setting at 2200 RPM the intercooled airplane will cruise 14 knots true airspeed faster on one GPH less fuel per engine. So in this case intercooling is not just about detonation protection it is also about performance and economy. We didn't take credit for improved take-off and climb performance but both are improved dramatically. The initial full power climb increased about 300 ft./min. and the climb at 15,000 ft. went up about 500 ft./min.
Best regards,
Jim Christy
Aerostar Aircraft Corp.
Vice President

How do I see the attachments?

John,
Here is the chart for an intercooled 601P Aerostar. Also attached is the cruise performance at FL250 for the stock Aerostar. When you use the stock performance chart you see in note 2 "When operating at power settings within the boxes, do not lean below fuel flows shown..." This is for detonation prevention. Comparing the max cruise power setting at 2200 RPM the intercooled airplane will cruise 14 knots true airspeed faster on one GPH less fuel per engine. So in this case intercooling is not just about detonation protection it is also about performance and economy. We didn't take credit for improved take-off and climb performance but both are improved dramatically. The initial full power climb increased about 300 ft./min. and the climb at 15,000 ft. went up about 500 ft./min.
Best regards,
Jim Christy
Aerostar Aircraft Corp.
Vice President

Thanks Jim.

I don’t recall if I posted this before, so if this a repeat, sorry for the wasted electrons but a fellow pilot asked me about my gas caps so I thought I would pass my solution along.

After years of resorting to crossfeed to maintain fuel balance, and haveing to twice chase the jet fuel truck away from my plane, I decided to find a better cap. This was my solution.

How do these help to maintain fuel balance, Jeff?

By finally sealing properly. With the old caps they would never seal 100%, creating unbalanced fuel burn in the air and water contamination issues on the ground. Even changing the o-rings on a regular basis never seemed to solve the problem fo very long.

If after replacing both o rings on each cap and you are still experiencing leaking, something else is going on. Your caps are not seating properly, have not been adjusted properly, or, they need additional adjustment after they begin leaking after a short period of time not leaking. I have never had or heard of your problem to the extent you describe after changing the o rings on an annual basis. In addition, I’m not sure what you have done is legal.
From a purely functional standpoint, you have severely restricted the ability to directionally control the fuel nozzle while fueling. You may have to replace the entire fuel cap assembly including the inner ring within the wing itself.
The only thing I can think of is the ring within the wing where the cap seats itself may be corroded to the extent that even new o rings on the caps do not seal properly.

There always has to be one out there... seriously limit the directional control of the fuel nozzle... Never knew that was a “legal” requirement.

There always has to be one out there... seriously limit the directional control of the fuel nozzle... Never knew that was a “legal” requirement.

They do look well made, but on a certified plane I think the question of legality is certainly appropriate. How did you get it installed...field approval, “minor mod” with A&P, or is the part approved by AAC?

Local FSDO rep said: Great idea, certainly qualifies as a minor alteration, write it up as such. In layman speak, no 337, field approval, etc, required.

Took a couple hours on the lathe to manufacture the appropriate adapter rings out of 6061 (if memory serves) and thread the holes (had to find a metric tap). Then it was just a matter of gooping them up with sealer and tightening the screws. BTW, my Spruce reference is in error, they are actually 300 series caps, not 200.

I just had to jerk Tom Cooke's chain a bit... It is always fun to hear folks that either don't know the regs, or simply don't bother to read them blast out "YOU CAN'T DO THAT... IT'S ILLEGAL!!! Oh really, care to elaborate exactly why?? A better question would have been something like "Looks nice, what was required paperwork wise??" Guess it's more fun to come out guns a blazing with a condescending comment; but it's the internet, I have kind of come to expect it.

Cheers, Jeff

Great Job!