I agree with Tracy, when I had a 2.17:1 and a 68x72 prop
producing 5200-5400 static gave plenty of power for an RV-6A to fly on. Top
speed was 196 MPH TAS and ROC loaded was around 900-1100 fpm. Going to the
2.85 and a much larger prop 74x88 gave me a static of 6000-6200 and greatly
added oomph to take off acceleration and climbout.
However, 10-11 GPH equates to around
100-110 HP which seems low for 1000 MSL – assuming that was WOT. But,
some folks may pull back on power to prevent overheating after takeoff.
If you’re fuel flow is accurate then
that puts a top end limit on your power being produced – but not
necessarily a lower limit as the rotor will past through considerably more fuel
without bogging than a piston engine. So you may be showing 20 gph –
which if was producing power would give you close to 200HP – however, you
could be producing less HP and simply blowing fuel through the engine. But,
fuel flow, manifold pressure and engine rpm are three primary factors in
estimating HP.
Ed
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:42
AM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not
developing full power.
Tracy,
I got my mind backwards again! The 2.17 is like maybe running in
third gear, while the 2.85 is like running in second. The RPM would be
lower for the 2.17.
But what do you think about his fuel flow of 10-11 gph and the climb rate
of 400? Do those seem really low for 1000 MSL?
What do you think about the 2/3 use of the throttle?
Bill B
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:17
AM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not
developing full power.
5400 static rpm with a
fixed pitch prop on a 2.17 drive is not bad, assuming that the prop is
appropriate for a 180 HP engine on your airframe. If so, 5400 is
definitely flying power. Another clue is fuel flow. If you are
burning 12 - 15 gph at static WOT, it's ready to fly.
FWIW, when I used the 2.17 drive my static RPM was 5200. You don't want
to have too high a static rpm because the top speed rpm in flight would allow
prop over speed. I picked up 1200 rpm over static at top speed.
That would have given me 7200 if I had 6000 static. Prop Tip speed would
have been supersonic (bad).
Hope this makes sense.
Tracy
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Steve,
What
results has your repaired muffler given you?
It
strikes me that you should be able to get over 6K
static (and take off) RPM with the 2.17 drive. That shouldn’t
change much with altitude I think. You will have less air for the engine
to breathe, but it will be easier for the prop to turn in the thinner
air. You were getting about 5K
on your take off and climb from Texas.
Your climb rate was only about 400 fpm also. You lifted off at close to 1K feet at 6 minutes and reached close to 4K feet at 14 minutes. Lets say 3200 ft in 8
minutes. At higher altitudes I don’t know if you could
climb.?? Do you think all this was caused by the muffler?
Your prop
rpm was right in there with your indicated airspeed. Both were about
148-149 mph at cruise.
If you
still have throttle left after the engine maxes out, I think that
indicates a problem of some kind. I encourage you to try and discover
what causes it. One reason is that I am having the same situation!
:>) My static is around 5400 rpm max and there is still throttle
left. I am still working on my cooling, so I can not run the
engine. But I don’t think I am developing enough power to try to
fly.
Where did
you get the data?
Bill B
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
On Behalf Of sboese
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:59
PM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Not
developing full power.
The following observations may be of interest in the light of
recent discussions.
On the flight to the resent Rotorfest, I thought the exhaust
noise level had increased at one point. This was just chalked up to
fatigue and the longer than normal time in flight since this was the longest XC
attempted to date. My usual procedure for adjusting throttle position is
to advance it until no further increase in rpm results even though there is
normally about ¼ of the total travel still available. My throttle body is
a cut down Mazda one with two openings as described in Tracy’s guide. Since I use the stock
oil metering pump, the throttle position adjusts the metering pump stroke and
advancing the throttle more than necessary results in accumulation of oil in
the sump. At one point when checking the throttle position, the RPM
actually dropped slightly when advancing the throttle further. I thought
to myself “this is strange” and returned the throttle to its
original setting since things were running smoothly.
At the Rotorfest, I listened with interest to Mark’s
presentation on muffler lifetime or lack thereof, wondering why my first
attempt at a muffler had survived so long. I attributed this to my normal
operation at high density altitudes which results in reduced max power
levels. I also described the construction of my “bomb” to
several people who were interested in it. I now realize that I
didn’t know what was in it myself. During the preflight before
leaving the Rotorfest, I noticed a rattle in the muffler when checking its
security to the belly of the plane. After returning to Laramie, I investigated the rattle further
and the results are shown in the attached pictures. The fact that the
center baffle broke is not surprising since it was simply a push fit into the
shell and was vulnerable to flexing since it was flat. The repair uses a
conical shaped baffle with a solid ring around its outside circumference to
make it even stiffer. We’ll see how long that lasts.
The recent discussion on not developing full power,
especially Ed’s information on seeing almost 20 gph at max power settings
at seal level got me thinking about my performance. I have seen up to 16
gal/hr at 4500 ft DA on a rare excursion to that low an altitude. That
didn’t seem unreasonable considering the sophistication of my setup
compared to Ed’s. Looking back at the data log from the flight home
from the Rotorfest, there were some interesting observations concerning the departure
from 40XS. That segment of some of the data from the log is shown in the
attached plots.
A couple of things in the data seem to me to stand out.
One is that I am recovering nearly full manifold pressure in the plenum at wide
open throttle compared to ambient as shown in the data of the manifold pressure
before start-up and during runup and take off. This has always been the
case. The second thing that stands out is that I was only using between
10 and 11 gal/hr at wide open throttle with the mixture adjusted for max
power. I didn’t look at the fuel flow reading during runup or take
off and only noticed these low values when examining the data log
recently. I am confident that the fuel flow readings are quite accurate
since the fuel actually used for this trip matches the instrument readout very
well. While some of you may have experienced some apprehension at such a
pathetic power production level, it seemed normal to me since I usually operate
at density altitude from 7000-10000 ft. Another thing I noticed in the
data is the significant rpm drop when the prop unstalled just prior to
liftoff. The rpm usually drops a little at that point but not nearly this
much. I remember noticing this on departure, but was otherwise occupied
and didn’t give much further thought at the time. Not shown in the
plots is the coolant temperature which reached 225 degrees at the stock
location in the flywheel end iron at 8 minutes into the log. This is
about 20 degrees higher than normal even at the reduced fuel consumption level
during this time. Oil temperature showed a similar response.
After removing the muffler to investigate the rattle,
standing it on end would allow the broken segment to move to the area of the
outlet and block some of the exhaust exit area. Laying it horizontally
again would allow the broken segment to slide down the conical end where it
could not be seen in the exit. I suspect that the exhaust gas carried the
broken segment up the slope where it could block part of the exit when
operating at power levels above idle. Luckily, the blockage was not
enough to prevent generating enough power to sustain flight.
In any case, the data log is a record of the effect of
increased back pressure on the performance of my NA 13B. Just as has been
described in the recent discussions, the result was as expected: decreased max
fuel consumption and decreased max power production. In addition, I saw
increased coolant and oil temperatures. Maybe the increased back pressure
was responsible for the decrease in rpm upon fully opening the throttle in
stabilized flight, but I’m not sure why such an effect would arise.
For what it is worth…
Steve Boese
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com