X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail.qnsi.net ([66.219.56.248] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3533991 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:12:30 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.219.56.248; envelope-from=bhughes@qnsi.net Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Return-Receipt-To: "Bobby J. Hughes" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9A0C0.F9747536" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Ground Testing Disposition-Notification-To: "Bobby J. Hughes" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:11:42 -0600 Message-ID: <74120FDE88CAFE4DBDA8814BCE20A3F30D814E@qnsi-mail.qnsi.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: Ground Testing Thread-Index: AcmgwFAE15gZmchBSfuy3dSFvfHPtQAAFoIg References: From: "Bobby J. Hughes" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A0C0.F9747536 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jim, =20 =20 Actually the Renesis has cooler exhaust temps. Also the stock Renesis exhaust manifold should work perfectly for a pusher. =20 Bobby Hughes FAA paperwork (better than fiberglass) ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim Perdue Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 7:07 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ground Testing John/Ed, =20 Thanks for the sound advice. I guess there is no need to re-invent the wheel, as I am not planning any new approaches in the installation. I will definitely be taking the road many others have already gone down. So it's back to the books and newsgroups for a little bit of knowledge and some research. =20 John, I tend to agree with you about the 20B. The more I think about it, the more I sway towards a 2 rotor. I have been over your website more times than I can count, and will be "stealing" a lot of your ideas when the time comes. I gave quick thought to a turbo 13B, but am a little hesitant to add more complexity to an already complex installation. However, I haven't discounted it. I am curious to see how the Girrrls do with there installation. I know the renesis engines have hotter exhaust temps, so I'll have to look into solutions for that. Thanks again, you bring up a lot of thought-provoking questions. Exactly the reason for these newsgroups!! =20 Jim Charlotte, NC ________________________________ From: Ed Anderson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Monday, March 9, 2009 5:24:22 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ground Testing Hi Jim, =20 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. =20 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. =20 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)=20 2. Worked out some changes in component installation on the Firewall=20 3. Proved that the GM evaporator cores (used as radiators) would indeed work=20 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.=20 5. Showed that my semi "returnless" fuel system (1/2 pint header tank mounted on the firewall) worked=20 6. Showed that my "Plugs Up" orientation of the engine was indeed viable.=20 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)=20 8. Gain considerably knowledge (still learning) about and confidence in the engine ( 500+ hours run time) and 10 years since first flight. =20 =20 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. =20 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. =20 Just my 0.02 worth =20 Hope this helps. =20 Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com =20 http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW =20 http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm =20 ________________________________ 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 =20 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. =20 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" ;-) =20 I appreciate any input on this subject. Thanks! =20 Jim Charlotte , NC =20 ________________________________ 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. =20 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. =20 I did find a couple of leaks that will have to be fixed, but that is all minor work. =20 Thanks all for the helpful words! =20 Getting closer every day. =20 Chris =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A0C0.F9747536 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jim,
 
 
Actually the Renesis has cooler exhaust = temps. Also the=20 stock Renesis exhaust manifold should work perfectly for a=20 pusher.
 
Bobby Hughes
FAA paperwork (better than=20 fiberglass)

From: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim=20 Perdue
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 7:07 AM
To: = Rotary=20 motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ground=20 Testing

John/Ed,
 
Thanks for the sound advice. I guess there is no need to re-invent = the=20 wheel, as I am not planning any new approaches in the = installation. I=20 will definitely be taking the road many others have already gone = down. So=20 it's back to the books and newsgroups for a little bit of knowledge and = some=20 research.
 
John, I tend to agree with you about the 20B. The more I think = about=20 it, the more I sway towards a 2 rotor. I have been over your = website more=20 times than I can count, and will be "stealing" a lot of your ideas when = the time=20 comes. I gave quick thought to a turbo 13B, but am a little hesitant to = add more=20 complexity to an already complex installation. However, I haven't=20 discounted it. I am curious to see how the Girrrls do with there=20 installation.  I know the renesis engines have hotter exhaust = temps, so=20 I'll have to look into solutions for that. Thanks again, you bring up a = lot of=20 thought-provoking questions. Exactly the reason for these = newsgroups!!
 
Jim
Charlotte, NC
From: Ed Anderson=20 <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2009 = 5:24:22=20 AM
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re:=20 Ground Testing

Hi=20 Jim,

 

Being one of = the early=20 Rotary Fliers and knowing no one (at the time) with a flying rotary =  and=20 there being no such e mail list as this to ask questions, I decided on = extensive=20 ground testing.  I build a test stand that duplicated my planned = FWF=20 installation.  Mounted the engine and ran it in the test stand for = over 30=20 hours ground  run time.   Keeping in mind that so far as = I knew=20 at the time – the rotary had not been yet proven in aircraft = application. =20 In fact, the few folks that had tried it never really achieve success = even=20 though a couple did get into the air.

 

But, in any = case, here=20 is what I believe the ground test program provided me (some of the = factors have=20 now been demonstrated by many others and can be accepted with such = ground=20 running.

 

  1. Reliability and=20 robustness of the engine (yes, I manage to over-heat it a couple of = times –=20 once to the point of having to replace the stock coolant = “O”=20 rings)=20
  2. Worked = out some=20 changes in component installation on the Firewall=20
  3. Proved = that the GM=20 evaporator cores (used as radiators) would indeed work=20
  4. Showed = that the EFI=20 pumps would indeed “suck” fuel up-hill at least 2 feet and = once even caused a=20 heavy duty marine type fuel container to collapse due to the pressure=20 differential (for got to undo the vent cap).  Note: having a EFI = “such”=20 fuel rather than “Push” fuel is not recommended.  The = pumps should be=20 “wet” at all times when operating – even 30-50 = seconds without fuel can damage=20 their impeller.=20
  5. Showed = that my semi=20  “returnless” fuel system (1/2 pint header tank = mounted on the firewall)=20 worked=20
  6. Showed = that my “Plugs=20 Up” orientation of the engine was indeed viable.=20
  7. Convinced = my self=20 that the engine would put out sufficient power to make it a viable = power plan=20 (although not nearly the power I got out of it later after completely=20 redesigning the induction system)=20
  8. Gain = considerably=20 knowledge (still learning) about  and confidence in the engine ( = 500+=20 hours run time) and 10 years since first = flight.

 

 

Now, having = said all of=20 that, much of the above can be taken as proven and no need to further = reinvent=20 the wheel.  If however, you are talking some new approach to some = element=20 of a critical system such fuel, ignition, cooling or lubrication, then = you might=20 want to verify that your concept is viable on the ground rather than in = the=20 air.  On the other hand, if you are pretty much following practices = that=20 have been proven by members of this list then there is probably no need = for a=20 ground test program other than what you do to prove your installed setup =  works as planned.

 

The further = you depart=20 from what has been shown to work, then the greater the need for a ground = test=20 phase, in my opinion.  Being in the air and finding out your idea = is less=20 than ideal is not the place to be.

 

Just my 0.02=20 worth

 

Hope this=20 helps.

 

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW = Rotary=20 Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html<= /P>

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jim = Perdue
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 = 10:50=20 PM
To: Rotary motors = in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary]=20 Ground Testing

 

Hello everyone. I've been reading this mailing = list for=20 a bit, and I am very impressed with the knowledge and experiences being = shared=20 here. It is everyone here who is paving the way for the rotary = installations of=20 the future. I for one am very grateful.

 

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

 

I appreciate any input on this subject.=20 Thanks!

 

Jim

Charlotte , NC

 

From: Mark=20 Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2009 = 9:18:55=20 PM
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re:=20 I've got oil pressure!

That's great news = Chris.  Glad=20 you figured out the problem. 

Mark S.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:23 PM, The Mallorys = <candtmallory@cebridge.net>=20 wrote:

I made some=20 good progress this weekend.  After trying to prime the oil pump and = still=20 not getting any oil flow, I broke down and removed the pan.  There = was the=20 culprit, big as day.  I had a kink in the oil pickup line.  = Because I=20 am installing an inverted oil system, I have to run the line from the = pump back=20 out the pan to the inverted oil ball valve.  This line needed a = bend, and I=20 thought the hose could handle it, but I was wrong.  SO I replaced = the bend=20 with metal parts, and reassembled everything.  Now I’ve got = 60 PSI.  I=20 also burped the coolant, and that system seems to be working=20 too.

 

I did find=20 a couple of leaks that will have to be fixed, but that is all minor=20 work.

 

Thanks all=20 for the helpful words!

 

Getting=20 closer every day.

 

Chris

 

 


------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A0C0.F9747536--