X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3533830 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:24:53 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta05.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090309092415.JIMF28145.cdptpa-omta05.mail.rr.com@computername> for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 09:24:15 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Ground Testing Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 05:24:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C9A077.4E6983A0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcmgYNZVlObwqVfeSB2kEzwpbWTEIwANX7ZA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Message-Id: <20090309092415.JIMF28145.cdptpa-omta05.mail.rr.com@computername> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C9A077.4E6983A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jim, Being one of the early Rotary Fliers and knowing no one (at the time) with a flying rotary and there being no such e mail list as this to ask questions, I decided on extensive ground testing. I build a test stand that duplicated my planned FWF installation. Mounted the engine and ran it in the test stand for over 30 hours ground run time. Keeping in mind that so far as I knew at the time - the rotary had not been yet proven in aircraft application. In fact, the few folks that had tried it never really achieve success even though a couple did get into the air. But, in any case, here is what I believe the ground test program provided me (some of the factors have now been demonstrated by many others and can be accepted with such ground running. 1. Reliability and robustness of the engine (yes, I manage to over-heat it a couple of times - once to the point of having to replace the stock coolant "O" rings) 2. Worked out some changes in component installation on the Firewall 3. Proved that the GM evaporator cores (used as radiators) would indeed work 4. Showed that the EFI pumps would indeed "suck" fuel up-hill at least 2 feet and once even caused a heavy duty marine type fuel container to collapse due to the pressure differential (for got to undo the vent cap). Note: having a EFI "such" fuel rather than "Push" fuel is not recommended. The pumps should be "wet" at all times when operating - even 30-50 seconds without fuel can damage their impeller. 5. Showed that my semi "returnless" fuel system (1/2 pint header tank mounted on the firewall) worked 6. Showed that my "Plugs Up" orientation of the engine was indeed viable. 7. Convinced my self that the engine would put out sufficient power to make it a viable power plan (although not nearly the power I got out of it later after completely redesigning the induction system) 8. Gain considerably knowledge (still learning) about and confidence in the engine ( 500+ hours run time) and 10 years since first flight. Now, having said all of that, much of the above can be taken as proven and no need to further reinvent the wheel. If however, you are talking some new approach to some element of a critical system such fuel, ignition, cooling or lubrication, then you might want to verify that your concept is viable on the ground rather than in the air. On the other hand, if you are pretty much following practices that have been proven by members of this list then there is probably no need for a ground test program other than what you do to prove your installed setup works as planned. The further you depart from what has been shown to work, then the greater the need for a ground test phase, in my opinion. Being in the air and finding out your idea is less than ideal is not the place to be. Just my 0.02 worth Hope this helps. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Perdue Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:50 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Ground Testing Hello everyone. I've been reading this mailing list for a bit, and I am very impressed with the knowledge and experiences being shared here. It is everyone here who is paving the way for the rotary installations of the future. I for one am very grateful. I am currently building a Cozy MKIV and I am seriously considering a rotary. Most likely a renesis, but possibly considering a 20B. I have rebuilt a few engines in my day (piston of course). I am far from needing an engine, but I was wondering if some of you can answer a question? I realize there are in-flight challenges that can only be addressed at that time of course, but how much can you debug/learn from ground testing an engine? Can anyone tell me what can be acheived during ground testing and what cannot? Even though I am far away from a powerplant, I'd like to pick up a cheap engine and start "playing" ;-) I appreciate any input on this subject. Thanks! Jim Charlotte, NC _____ From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2009 9:18:55 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: I've got oil pressure! That's great news Chris. Glad you figured out the problem. Mark S. On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:23 PM, The Mallorys wrote: I made some good progress this weekend. After trying to prime the oil pump and still not getting any oil flow, I broke down and removed the pan. There was the culprit, big as day. I had a kink in the oil pickup line. Because I am installing an inverted oil system, I have to run the line from the pump back out the pan to the inverted oil ball valve. This line needed a bend, and I thought the hose could handle it, but I was wrong. SO I replaced the bend with metal parts, and reassembled everything. Now I've got 60 PSI. I also burped the coolant, and that system seems to be working too. I did find a couple of leaks that will have to be fixed, but that is all minor work. Thanks all for the helpful words! Getting closer every day. Chris ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C9A077.4E6983A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Jim,

 

Being one of the early Rotary = Fliers and knowing no one (at the time) with a flying rotary  and there being = no such e mail list as this to ask questions, I decided on extensive ground = testing.  I build a test stand that duplicated my planned FWF installation.  = Mounted the engine and ran it in the test stand for over 30 hours ground  run = time.   Keeping in mind that so far as I knew at the time – the rotary had not = been yet proven in aircraft application.  In fact, the few folks that had tried it = never really achieve success even though a couple did get into the = air.

 

But, in any case, here is what I = believe the ground test program provided me (some of the factors have now been demonstrated by many others and can be accepted with such ground = running.

 

  1. Reliability and robustness of the engine (yes, I manage to over-heat it a = couple of times – once to the point of having to replace the stock = coolant “O” rings)
  2. Worked out some changes in component installation on the = Firewall
  3. Proved that the GM evaporator cores (used as radiators) would indeed = work
  4. Showed that the EFI pumps would indeed “suck” fuel up-hill at = least 2 feet and once even caused a heavy duty marine type fuel container to = collapse due to the pressure differential (for got to undo the vent cap).  = Note: having a EFI “such” fuel rather than “Push” fuel = is not recommended.  The pumps should be “wet” at all times when operating – = even 30-50 seconds without fuel can damage their impeller.
  5. Showed that my semi  “returnless” fuel system (1/2 pint = header tank mounted on the firewall) worked
  6. Showed that my “Plugs Up” orientation of the engine was indeed = viable.
  7. Convinced my self that the engine would put out sufficient power to make it a = viable power plan (although not nearly the power I got out of it later = after completely redesigning the induction = system)
  8. Gain considerably knowledge (still learning) about  and confidence = in the engine ( 500+ hours run time) and 10 years since first = flight.

 

 

Now, having said all of that, much = of the above can be taken as proven and no need to further reinvent the = wheel.  If however, you are talking some new approach to some element of a critical = system such fuel, ignition, cooling or lubrication, then you might want to = verify that your concept is viable on the ground rather than in the air.  On = the other hand, if you are pretty much following practices that have been proven by = members of this list then there is probably no need for a ground test program other = than what you do to prove your installed setup  works as = planned.

 

The further you depart from what = has been shown to work, then the greater the need for a ground test phase, in my = opinion.  Being in the air and finding out your idea is less than ideal is not the = place to be.

 

Just my 0.02 = worth

 

Hope this = helps.

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Perdue
Sent: Sunday, March 08, = 2009 10:50 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Ground Testing

 

Hello everyone. I've been reading this mailing list for a bit, = and I am very impressed with the knowledge and experiences being shared here. It = is everyone here who is paving the way for the rotary installations of the = future. I for one am very grateful.

 

I am currently building a Cozy MKIV and I am seriously = considering a rotary. Most likely a renesis, but possibly considering a 20B. I have = rebuilt a few engines in my day (piston of course). I am far from needing an = engine, but I was wondering if some of you can answer a question? I realize there = are in-flight challenges that can only be addressed at that time of course, = but how much can you debug/learn from ground testing an engine? Can anyone tell = me what can be acheived during ground testing and what cannot? Even though I am = far away from a powerplant, I'd like to pick up a cheap engine and start "playing" ;-)

 

I appreciate any input on this subject. = Thanks!

 

Jim

Charlotte, NC

 

From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 8, = 2009 9:18:55 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = I've got oil pressure!

That's great news Chris.  Glad you figured out the problem.  =

Mark S.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:23 PM, The Mallorys <candtmallory@cebridge.net> wrote:

I made some good progress this weekend.  After trying to prime the oil = pump and still not getting any oil flow, I broke down and removed the pan.  = There was the culprit, big as day.  I had a kink in the oil pickup = line.  Because I am installing an inverted oil system, I have to run the line = from the pump back out the pan to the inverted oil ball valve.  This line = needed a bend, and I thought the hose could handle it, but I was wrong.  SO = I replaced the bend with metal parts, and reassembled everything.  = Now I’ve got 60 PSI.  I also burped the coolant, and that system seems to be working too.

 

I did find a couple of leaks that will have to be fixed, but that is all minor = work.

 

Thanks all for the helpful words!

 

Getting closer every day.

 

Chris

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C9A077.4E6983A0--