I think it's more him trying to give him self credit and self worth with the shear amount of criticism he receives here because of his posts.

I did mostly Helicopters and Military/Government stuff before moving to Tucson to the commercial civilian side of things. The FAA is a joke. Pathetic IMO. The A&P means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I know many a mechanic without A&P's that would run circles around all the A&P's in my hangar. It's insane. The FAA has standards far far far below my own.

 

You know.....I have a really hard time with someone who posts 'application specific' advice, and the bulk (if not all) of what they 'recommend' comes from linked articles.

A person with actual experience (BTW, Pat (Bowtienut) logs upwards of 100 competition nitrous runs per year) will get and hold my trust/respect to a much higher degree.

Someone who has zero hands-on experience in a particular area handing out advice? Not so much.

Jus' sayin'......

KW

 

The only time the FAA is a pain is when a customer DER takes FAA stuff as the bible and does not deviate from them at all. At that point you enter into the adage, the plane will fly when the paperwork weighs more than it. Case in point, LJ85.

 

What's funny is I'm that guy that takes the tech data as bible. If I don't deviate, at all, I am not wrong. If I find something wrong with the book(s), I get it changed; I've refused to do tasks because company policy and tech data conflict. Sorry, not on my name. Most my co-workers tell me how it's impossible to follow the data to the T, but I do it and in less time then they take to not.

You work business jets? I've not much experience with those. But, I know that those have more strict tolerances (perceptional anyway) to the books than what commercial enforces. They still don't hold a candle to the detail of helicopters. I'm entirely too **** for fixed wings. I drive my management crazy, then their bosses and QC back me up.

I'm used to paperwork taking longer than actual work. LOL. You ever done a RESET? If not, that's where every single inspection that has ever been written on an air frame is performed at the same time (it resets all scheduled maintenance inspections to the same point). We tore helicopters to the frame, cleaned and inspected everything (including opening up wiring harnesses and inspecting all wires and cleaning them all), fixed or replaced everything that was bad. Then put it all back together, ground runs, test flights, tq checks, ready for missions in 45-80 days (air frame dependent). The paperwork on those rivals the encyclopedia Britannica. Imagine doing the zero time close outs on that. It takes a day just to review the log book post RESET, and none of the actual RESET paper work goes in the log book.

 

I do stuff for fixed wing and the silly rotor guys. At the moment our only rotor frame is the AW169 and supposedly there may be a new contract for a tilt wing.

For me the FAA presents test requirements that are completely overkill and customers err on the side of that cause they A) don't know otherwise B) don't want the liability. Biggest issue is passing vibration tests that test situations that will never ever occur on the frame, unless the wings have fallen off and you are plummeting. Just causes more weight and cost into product.

So far, I have never had the FAA have my stuff pulled apart, all my FAI for conformity have been flying color passes. But again, the FAA isn't as bad as people make em out to be, sadly they are more concerned with paper trail than the product meeting said print

But I digress, run a 8.1:1 SCR.

 

LOL, 8.1:1 too funny. You have no credibility! 8.1:1, pfft, go home! LOL.

I miss those silly twirly wings! Hopefully I get back to that soon, applied for a job locally with great pay, excellent benefits, and awesome job security. Got an offer, just waiting on the back ground check...... Fingers Crossed.

The paper trail is the truth. That really is all it's about; Government control and finding out who to blame for what going wrong.

Back on topic. I thought N20 was treated like N/A for the build with the exception of ring gaps and PTW clearances. Then the tune adds fuel and pulls timing at activation? So SCR should be determined just like it would be for DCR on a cam N/A build?

 

Not really, I troll the **** out of tech, its a cesspool of silliness.

But, I also have a 3600lb sled that goes 140mph, what you got son?

Because it is a interview in a way.

U sound more like AA member than a "Man-Crusher". Now u want to brag your non-emissions car and have nothing to share 'bout compression for NOx. And that derelict babbling attracts other lamebrain unemployed experts bragging again and again and again off topic. Yea someone that has to tell u how good they are means u would defiantly miss it if they didnt. Same troll now is asking for the right compression ratio science shows he really dont know poop 'bout NOx but is just here to share his butt hurt whining and whining and whining. Cant shut up a real oink head.

Yea i link and even sometimes cut and paste good information for those asking. I dont know anyone here that has done continuous objective testing of different compression ratios with different size NOx applications - other than some NOx vendors or D. Vizard. But to share that here makes some of the hacks sequel like pigs for stepping on there amateur progress. So what? They can sequel all they want - it dont change the facts or the truth.

 

None of this made any sense. Can you try again in some form of understandable grammar?

BTW, Cardo0, I'm not unemployed (if that was what you were trying to say), I am gainfully employed with a reputable international employer with good pay and benefits. I have, however, found a better job with a better employer with better pay, benefits, and schedule locally. Why wouldn't I take it?

 

+1^^^^

 

cardo, you keep trying to apply grossly outdated or wildly generic "knowledge" to the WRONG PLATFORM.
The LT1 is very similar to older SBC engines but is different.
In the 90s when I became interested in cars all the magazines and writers like Vizard were saying 185psi cranking was about the max for a street pump gas(92 octane) motor, BUT even the Caprice LT1 at 10:1 cranks higher than that and is fine on 87 octane.

You have to be a troll but the most dedicated one I have ever seen, no way a normal functional human being could be as thick as you are in the face of so many vastly more experienced posters.

 

U are distorting the facts again. D. Vizard said 220psi is max compression press for a street engine and 180 psi is the minimum for a street performance engine from his very popular "How to Max Perf .... on a Budget - copyright 1999, page 96 (and u advertize a 1996 engine also). Why do u have to lie about everything i post??

U truly have some chronic mental issues and need to seek help. The topic here is compression ratio with NOx. And u have nothing but personal attacks to contribute. No useful information. U only display your mental and emotional problems by lying and lying. As i said before the blabbering derelicts here only attract more trolls and u confirm that fact.

 

None of this made any sense.

Oh it made sense. I read 3 trolls with their butt hurt replys.

 

Since so far the only correct thing you have pointed out is that I am in fact a troll on ls1tech, I would correct you in your assumption I am "butt hurt", believe me, you won't suceed in that.

I am merely enjoying the fellow troll, doing some quality troll work. Although in your case, I am not sure you intend to do so.

All in all, 5 star trolling cado0

 

Where on that page does it say specifically LT1 engines?

I highlighted where I said I was stating what I read in the 90s so you quoting a book written AFTER the things I was talking about just makes you the one the one distorting things.

I have EXPERIENCE with street/strip LT1s as in multiple with cranking compressions all the way up to 245psi. till outside the magic range you want to believe as gospel.

Vizard was for all practical purposes a magazine writer, he never was, has been or will be some great engine master, you put him up on way too high a pedestal. His books are a great introduction for the novice, some of us go further within specific applications. His experience is with a much greater range of engines than most of us, but you will find a lot of folks here who know the LT1 far better than he.

 

I cant decide if I'd want this cardoo guy banned or not. I mean the **** he says is just rediculous but it is very entertaining.

 

For the love of all that is right in the world, at least use the proper terminology!

What is NOx?: NOx is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless. However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) along with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas.

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) formed during the combustion of coal are mainly nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), together commonly referred to as NOX. NOX formed during combustion is composed predominantly of NO (90-95%) and a lesser amount (5-10%) of NO2. A very small percentage of nitrous oxides (N2O) are also formed . The nitric oxide slowly oxidizes to nitrogen oxide in the atmosphere. However this reaction is accelerated in the presence of ozone (O3) and reactive organic compounds. Source

 

Since so far the only correct thing you have pointed out is that I am in fact a troll on ls1tech, I would correct you in your assumption I am "butt hurt", believe me, you won't suceed in that.

Cant butt hurt something that is brain dead.


Vizard was for all practical purposes a magazine writer, he never was, has been or will be some great engine master, you put him up on way too high a pedestal. His books are a great introduction for the novice, some of us go further within specific applications. His experience is with a much greater range of engines than most of us, but you will find a lot of folks here who know the LT1 far better than he.

That statement is as pompous as it gets - something i can expect only from u. LIke u have your own engine dyno and do development work for the major auto mfrs??? U have a bachelors in aerospace and a masters in mechanical engineering too?? The truth is u and your armature forum experts are really peons in comparison to Vizard - and ive nothing to be sorry about for saying it.


I cant decide if I'd want this cardoo guy banned or not. I mean the **** he says is just ridiculous but it is very entertaining.

And now u must be an expert here too. Another retard that thinks hes some kinda judge here and cant figure out how to use the ignore function. I guess he prefers the looney reciting a google definition of NOx. Yea, thats a real expert. He goes from explaining how good a tech he is at the "hanger" to reciting google definitions. Too bad he has to change jobs every 2 years to have real career. Maybe he prefers a career in looney space rather than aerospace. Maybe he wears a nice tight jacket to prevent him from playing with sharp objects - both him and that pompous psychopath that explains how hes an LT1 expert too.

Dang, this place is mental sanatorium - and overcrowded too.

 

Now, where at SCR/DCR wise do you run into danger to your intake manifold?

 

You definitely DO NOT want to see this message on the hidden HUD display which pops up from the dash that GM specifically designed for f-body cars!

 

Cardo0, you're fun to mess with. You say the darndest things. Still using NOx huh? Still don't get the difference? I referenced a reliable, reputable, CURRENT source, because I figured that was your style and you'd accept it. Apparently not. My bad. You can dish it, but can't take it huh?

You enjoy your 15 second (slower than stock BTW) modified LT1 California emission legal (stock is Cali emission legal BTW) beast......

I got that message once, damn floor pan blew out! The HUD popped out of the dash just like you said!!!