Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.210; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=teLx83ffdjT1MVfX5gwaW5Q3ZY/Fd8Tnn9ejS+PcnJiztiS0hzp4EHEBK5q/6QbkS4
         aQvmF1zzITNtt8eKlpBA4c6WZTuod4ILs1IwRRrUWTOOmQxoelpnlDNk3R1YUz6veAdn
         UIRbh2UA4NGKvMBmaJZjeTAkIWJoO4bJIPynE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <list-3839390@logan.com>
References: <list-3839390@logan.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 21:52:49 -0500
Message-ID: <5cf132c0909061952m6db44660p6662ffa4feed734c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] At long last, First Flight
From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555a0b2fa4f410472f3f142

--00032555a0b2fa4f410472f3f142
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Great going Tracy.  Good report... Welcome to the 3-rotor crowd.

Mark

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>wrote:

> Today there was nothing left to do on the RV-8 but flight test it.
>
>  Very hot day (93 F and high humidity) but ground tests of the cooling
> system had gone so well that I was confident of cooling in flight.
> Installed the radio and transponder in the panel (which for some reason I
> had neglected to do until this morning) and they both worked with no
> problems, which is always a surprise.
>
> High speed taxi tests had already been completed and the P-factor was no
> worse than the RV-4, in fact I think it has less.  This may be premature
> because I haven't done a full throttle takeoff yet.  The RV-8 has 1.25
> degrees right offset which I think helps a lot.  The RV-4 has no offset.
> First flight was done without wheel pants or main gear intersection
> fairings.
>
> Just to make sure there were no surprises, takeoff was done at the same
> fuel flow as the RV-4 at WOT.  I didn't note the manifold pressure but the
> throttle quadrant was barely over 1/2 throttle.  Ground run on the -8 feels
> more stable than the -4 with considerably more rudder authority (it's
> physically bigger so no surprise).   The plane broke ground at about the
> same point as the -4 but it feels like it levitates off rather than rotates
> off.  Probably due to the higher wing incidence on the ground than the -4
> with the short gear legs but also due to the longer wing.  I had extended
> both wings by about 18" so the wing loading and span loading are less than
> on the -4.   It has about 13% more wing area than stock.  This was actually
> the second time the -8 had air under the tires since it had floated off
> ground about a foot once before during a high speed taxi test.
>
> Airspeed was increasing rapidly after lift off but the ASI was not matching
> the visual ques.   Normally I expect to see 120 mph at the end of the runway
> but ASI shows only 80. Too late to abort but the airplane is climbing &
> sounding very nice.   I had been doing a lot of seat-of-the pants takeoff
> and simulated dead stick landings (in the -4) in anticipation of today's
> tests so I would feel comfortable in the event of partial or complete panel
> failure  (Blue Mountain EFIS1 with only a standard ASI for backup).  Climb
> to 1000 feet felt effortless even after throttling back to 8 GPH.  I notice
> that I'm hunting for information and not absorbing much due to the very
> different instrument panel.   Remembering that the EFIS1 has the primary ASI
> in a speed ribbon format I hunt for it and see 0 MPH when I finally find
> it.  The EM2 shows the same airspeed as the steam gauge, now about 100 MPH.
> First squawk of the flight and this means I will do the first landing sans
> airspeed indicator.  I can't seem to locate the GPS ground speed on the
> display either.  Glad I did all that practice.
>
> Time to settle in and start evaluating engine performance.  I had taken off
> with the engine fairly warm so I was not surprised to see oil & water temps
> nearing 190 F after climbout.   I continue collecting data hoping the temps
> will start coming down but it is soon apparent that they are stabilizing at
> about 200 on both oil and coolant.   Very disappointing, since they had been
> well below this on the ground when at the same fuel flow I was currently
> flying at (I had backed it down to 5.75 gph by this time).
>
> The plane itself is flying beautifully.  The aileron trim is able to trim
> out a very slight left wing heavy tendency and the ship feels like it is
> gliding through the air effortlessly.  Again, no surprise, the plane feels
> just like an RV (Magnificent!).  At this speed (guessing about 135 mph) the
> roll response  is only slightly slower than the -4.  The ailerons were
> extended with the wing so the RV feel has been preserved.  I've completed a
> wide circuit of the pattern and in position to make an approach so I
> throttle back and I can immediately tell that the glide ratio is
> significantly higher than the -4.   The longer wing is having more effect
> than I thought it would even with the heavier engine.  This -8 with a 20B
> ended up weighing about 70 pounds more than the average one equipped with an
> 0 - 360 and fixed pitch prop and about the same as one equipped with an IO -
> 360 with constant speed prop.  All the attention to weight control has paid
> off.  I throttle up for a go around and the FBW throttle responds well, no
> detectable throttle lag at all.
>
> The higher than expected oil and water temps are distracting me from data
> gathering (Rats, I haven't had time to replace the EM2 with a data logging
> EM3 yet) so I make a few more circuits of the field and setup for an
> approach.  I crank in more flaps early to kill off the airspeed and excess
> glide ratio and intentionally do not look at the ASI to avoid being
> confused.  Wheel landing touchdown is perfect and now I glance at the ASI
> and see 40 MPH.  Obviously wrong.
>
> All in all, a great first flight.  The RV-8 is going to be exactly the
> airplane I was hoping for.   Still a lot of testing and tweaking to do.
>
> Tracy
>

--00032555a0b2fa4f410472f3f142
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>Great going Tracy.=A0 Good report... Welcome to the 3-rotor crowd.=A0<=
/div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Mark=A0<br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Tracy Crook <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tracy@rotaryaviation.com">tracy@rotarya=
viation.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Today there was nothing left to =
do on the RV-8 but flight test it. <br><br>=A0Very hot day (93 F and high h=
umidity) but ground tests of the cooling system had gone so well that I was=
 confident of cooling in flight.=A0=A0 Installed the radio and transponder =
in the panel (which for some reason I had neglected to do until this mornin=
g) and they both worked with no problems, which is always a surprise.=A0 <b=
r>
<br>High speed taxi tests had already been completed and the P-factor was n=
o worse than the RV-4, in fact I think it has less.=A0 This may be prematur=
e because I haven&#39;t done a full throttle takeoff yet.=A0 The RV-8 has 1=
.25 degrees right offset which I think helps a lot.=A0 The RV-4 has no offs=
et.=A0 First flight was done without wheel pants or main gear intersection =
fairings.<br>
<br>Just to make sure there were no surprises, takeoff was done at the same=
 fuel flow as the RV-4 at WOT.=A0 I didn&#39;t note the manifold pressure b=
ut the throttle quadrant was barely over 1/2 throttle.=A0 Ground run on the=
 -8 feels more stable than the -4 with considerably more rudder authority (=
it&#39;s physically bigger so no surprise).=A0=A0 The plane broke ground at=
 about the same point as the -4 but it feels like it levitates off rather t=
han rotates off.=A0 Probably due to the higher wing incidence on the ground=
 than the -4 with the short gear legs but also due to the longer wing.=A0 I=
 had extended both wings by about 18&quot; so the wing loading and span loa=
ding are less than on the -4.=A0=A0 It has about 13% more wing area than st=
ock.=A0 This was actually the second time the -8 had air under the tires si=
nce it had floated off ground about a foot once before during a high speed =
taxi test.<br>
<br>Airspeed was increasing rapidly after lift off but the ASI was not matc=
hing the visual ques.=A0=A0 Normally I expect to see 120 mph at the end of =
the runway but ASI shows only 80. Too late to abort but the airplane is cli=
mbing &amp; sounding very nice.=A0=A0 I had been doing a lot of seat-of-the=
 pants takeoff and simulated dead stick landings (in the -4) in anticipatio=
n of today&#39;s tests so I would feel comfortable in the event of partial =
or complete panel failure=A0 (Blue Mountain EFIS1 with only a standard ASI =
for backup).=A0 Climb to 1000 feet felt effortless even after throttling ba=
ck to 8 GPH.=A0 I notice that I&#39;m hunting for information and not absor=
bing much due to the very different instrument panel.=A0=A0 Remembering tha=
t the EFIS1 has the primary ASI in a speed ribbon format I hunt for it and =
see 0 MPH when I finally find it.=A0 The EM2 shows the same airspeed as the=
 steam gauge, now about 100 MPH.=A0 First squawk of the flight and this mea=
ns I will do the first landing sans airspeed indicator.=A0 I can&#39;t seem=
 to locate the GPS ground speed on the display either.=A0 Glad I did all th=
at practice. <br>
<br>Time to settle in and start evaluating engine performance.=A0 I had tak=
en off with the engine fairly warm so I was not surprised to see oil &amp; =
water temps nearing 190 F after climbout.=A0=A0 I continue collecting data =
hoping the temps will start coming down but it is soon apparent that they a=
re stabilizing at about 200 on both oil and coolant. =A0 Very disappointing=
, since they had been well below this on the ground when at the same fuel f=
low I was currently flying at (I had backed it down to 5.75 gph by this tim=
e).<br>
<br>The plane itself is flying beautifully.=A0 The aileron trim is able to =
trim out a very slight left wing heavy tendency and the ship feels like it =
is gliding through the air effortlessly.=A0 Again, no surprise, the plane f=
eels just like an RV (Magnificent!).=A0 At this speed (guessing about 135 m=
ph) the roll response=A0 is only slightly slower than the -4.=A0 The ailero=
ns were extended with the wing so the RV feel has been preserved.=A0 I&#39;=
ve completed a wide circuit of the pattern and in position to make an appro=
ach so I throttle back and I can immediately tell that the glide ratio is s=
ignificantly higher than the -4.=A0=A0 The longer wing is having more effec=
t than I thought it would even with the heavier engine.=A0 This -8 with a 2=
0B ended up weighing about 70 pounds more than the average one equipped wit=
h an 0 - 360 and fixed pitch prop and about the same as one equipped with a=
n IO - 360 with constant speed prop.=A0 All the attention to weight control=
 has paid off.=A0 I throttle up for a go around and the FBW throttle respon=
ds well, no detectable throttle lag at all.<br>
<br>The higher than expected oil and water temps are distracting me from da=
ta gathering (Rats, I haven&#39;t had time to replace the EM2 with a data l=
ogging EM3 yet) so I make a few more circuits of the field and setup for an=
 approach.=A0 I crank in more flaps early to kill off the airspeed and exce=
ss glide ratio and intentionally do not look at the ASI to avoid being conf=
used.=A0 Wheel landing touchdown is perfect and now I glance at the ASI and=
 see 40 MPH.=A0 Obviously wrong.<br>
<br>All in all, a great first flight.=A0 The RV-8 is going to be exactly th=
e airplane I was hoping for. =A0 Still a lot of testing and tweaking to do.=
<br><font color=3D"#888888"><br>Tracy =A0=A0 =A0 <br></font></blockquote></=
div><br>

--00032555a0b2fa4f410472f3f142--