From: "Stephen Izett stephen.izett@gmail.com" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.42; envelope-from=stephen.izett@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Glasair Testing
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:17:48 +0800
References: <list-10852517@logan.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-10852517@logan.com>
Message-Id: <0D8AC1A3-EB15-4338-B55A-2C030680173A@gmail.com>

Thanks Todd.
Your comments re turbo make sense.
And thanks for your thoughts re in flight failure modes and particularly =
cooling on that fist flight.
I won=E2=80=99t be flying the test flight, but hope as you mention to be =
on board monitoring the engine.

Cheers

Steve Izett


> On 18 Mar 2018, at 4:30 am, Todd Bartrim bartrim@gmail.com =
<flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Steve;
> (skip this first paragraph for those not interested in turbos :-)
>    The guy you should be asking about turbocharging is Dave Leonard. =
With a plane like a Glasair, I'm guessing your requirements would be =
continuous boost for high speed performance which the stock Mazda turbo =
has proven to be unsuitable.=20
>    Some builders have had some success with aftermarket turbos, but I =
believe that all of these also required an oil pump to return the oil to =
the pan, which starts to quickly add to the complexity & weight. The =
stock Mazda turbo makes for a far better, simpler, compact installation =
with gravity oil return. But is not reliable for continuous high output =
duty. However Dave apparently solved this problem by having a stock =
turbo heavily modified by an aftermarket turbo company that specializes =
in that. I believe it has performed well for him.
>   Dave has gone quiet on the list over the last few years, but I =
suspect he's lurking quietly in the shadows, so hopefully he will speak =
up and give you some details, as well as let us know how he's doing? But =
he did report in much detail as he was going through this process, so =
the info you need should be found in the archives.
>    The reason my install wouldn't help you much is my mission profile =
is much different. I'm already packing more HP than the RV9 was designed =
for, but that is more a function of the wings Vne restriction. I use the =
plan to use the turbo exclusively for take off and climb performance in =
the mountains, so it sees much shorter use in boost, similar to what the =
car would see. The only modification that I made was I ported the =
wastegate, dramatically increasing it's size.
>    I have 51 flight hours on the turbo (and many more on the ground) =
and have had no issues. But the aircraft has been grounded for too many =
years as other events have consumed my time, but I hope to return to =
flight this spring as I'm just completing another non-rotary related =
major airframe modification.=20
> So the long term longevity of the stock turbo in my lighter duty =
application is still unproven.
>=20
> But turbos, while interesting are worthy of an entirely new subject =
thread. On this subject, I see all your trends are pretty much exactly =
what I would expect to see. If you're ready and feel everything else is =
ready it's time to see what she can do in the air.
>=20
>   One thing to consider, and this is only my opinion, but when =
considering consequences of in-flight failure, I think about the time it =
takes for that failure to have severe negative consequences. With a =
failure of the fuel system, for example, the most common result is an =
immediate engine stoppage, followed by a dead stick landing. I've had a =
few of those and Ed Anderson has had a few more than that. If you're =
prepared it's not really that big of a deal, (I was testing the fuel =
system high above the airport on 2 occasions and once while I was in the =
circuit, but it wasn't busy), glider pilots do it all the time! =
Electrical failure can have varying results from an engine stoppage to a =
minor inconvenience. However these are the type of failures that can =
result in forced off airport landings.
>  But cooling issues are usually far less immediate. If it just a =
cooling system that is inadequate, then usually power can be reduced to =
levels producing manageable levels of heat and still safely continue =
flight and land as planned, then back to re-evaluating the problem using =
your new flight data. Even with a catastrophic cooling failure such as a =
blown hose and complete loss of coolant, the rotary won't just quit but =
will continue to operate far in excess of the time required to execute a =
safe landing at the airport. If this is done relatively quickly you may =
not even suffer any engine damage. At worst case you toast the engine, =
but you and the airframe are intact. But a likely scenario in the event =
of a complete coolant loss would be an engine rebuild, costing a few =
hundred dollars and 4-8 hours of time. Obviously this is not something =
you want at this time, but still, not an unmanageable setback.
>   So assuming that you have confidence in the integrity of your =
cooling system, then this catastrophic failure is not your concern, but =
rather just the performance of the system and whether it is up to the =
task of adequately cooling the engine in flight. And it looks good so =
far but there's only one way to know that for sure. So go fly, stay =
close. If temps rapidly increase on climb, then before you just =
terminate flight, see if they stabilize or decrease in level flight. =
Previously I found that my oil temps were usually good on an extended =
climb-out but not so good in level flight, but my coolant temps were =
opposite. Some of this can likely be attributed to the lag time caused =
by the lower thermal conductivity of oil vs coolant, but I think a =
larger factor was my previously good looking but not so efficient oil =
inlet scoop that functioned better at a higher angle of attack and a =
myriad of other ducting issues (like that I had none on any of the =
cooler outlets). So during your test flight, even if your temps are =
higher than you are comfortable with during climb, as long as they are =
not dangerously high try to extend the flight long enough to collect =
stabilized data in all flight phases.
>    Are you planning on doing the first flight yourself? If not, is =
your pilot familiar with your engine installation? If not, do you =
regulations stipulate "essential flight crew only"? If that's the case =
then I would say that you as the engine builder qualify as flight =
engineer. This is how I did it and it worked out very well.
>=20
> Let us know how it goes.
>=20
> Todd   (I hated nosewheel shimmy too, so I got rid of it)
>=20
> C-FSTB
> RV9 Turbo13B
>=20
> Todd Bartrim
>=20
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Stephen Izett stephen.izett@gmail.com =
<flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
> HI Todd
> Thanks for the feedback. And yes the manifold pressure does make =
sense, I was upside down expecting a lower manifold pressure at WOT. =
Doh!
> I=E2=80=99m colourblind and cant differentiate between some of those =
colours so was getting confused.
>=20
> Yes that Cri Cri is an interesting and tiny machine.
> Dawie and Sarki are great guys with heaps of experience and have been =
so very helpful.
> They bring it out every time we have an open day at our club. The =
crowds love it.
>=20
> On another note I=E2=80=99m very interested in the possibility of =
turboing the renesis in the future if all else goes well.
> What turbo are you using, what level of boost do you use and what hp =
do you think this is creating?
>=20
> Thanks again
>=20
> Steve Izett
>=20
>=20
> > On 17 Mar 2018, at 4:29 pm, Todd Bartrim bartrim@gmail.com =
<flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve;
> >  The manifold looks like exactly what I would expect to match your =
RPM, so no worries there. The temps don't look too bad to me. Possibly =
your oil cooling might be little low as it begins to increase rapidly =
when you add power and during an extended climb-out you may see that get =
a little hotter than you like, but it looks like it stabilizes quickly =
when you reduce the power.
> >    If everything else is performing well (fuel, electrical) then I =
don't see why it's not time to see how it cools in the air. That's a =
quick plane so my guess is that if you have enough ground cooling for =
indefinate ground operation, you may find excess cooling (and drag) in =
the air.
> >
> > But the real reason I'm responding right now is not rotary =
related....  A JET POWERED CRI CRI???? Holy s**t, what will they do =
next! So I found the YouTube video of it (VH-ZSE right?) That's pretty =
cool!
> >
> > Todd
> > C-FSTB
> > RV9 Turbo13B
> >
> > Todd Bartrim
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Stephen Izett =
stephen.izett@gmail.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
> > Hi people
> >
> > Continued testing the Glasair Super IIRG yesterday with an OAT of =
70. See graph of 13 minutes of data (Note: temps in C, Speed in Knots)
> >
> > Apart from collecting data on the cooling I flooded my system with =
adrenaline.
> >
> > On the second run as I hit about 45knots I encountered very high =
vibration with no warning. I braked and turned of the engine thinking it =
emanated from the engine/prop.
> > After leaving the runway and stopping for a few moments I tried a =
restart, and found all perfectly normal. Previously I had encountered =
huge missing at rpm so immediately thought that was the issue.
> > Having wrongly diagnosed the phenomenon I taxied back and did =
another run seeking to emulate the fault. Well this time I got up to =
about 47knots and all hell broke loose.
> > I was barely able to control her, leaving the strip and into the =
ruff. Over the radio came the call =E2=80=9Cif you continue with that =
front nose shimmy you will destroy your aircraft=E2=80=9D.
> > Well I had no interest in continuing the testing at that stage but =
was very thankful for the feedback from someone watching on. With my =
lack of expertise I had completely failed to realise what was happening.
> >
> > Back to the hangar and pulled the Shimmy Damper apart. Oil had =
gotten in at some point, so cleaned it up and re torqued the assembly.
> >
> > A friend on our airstrip with extensive experience in many different =
aircraft (he has an RV8, Longezy, jet powered cir cri, Comanche twin) =
then took it out with me (data not provided) and he confirmed he thought =
the aircraft seemed very responsive (shimmy Damper a little to tight =
now) and proceeded to lift the nose off for the first time under its own =
power at a little over 50 knots.
> >
> > So some big lessons for me in relation to my expertise and risk =
profiling.
> > Temps still concerning but I=E2=80=99m wondering if there is enough =
capacity to attempt flight testing.
> > I would appreciate any wisdom that any of you glean from the log =
data. (I expected a different result from the manifold readings, so not =
sure what is going on there)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Steve Izett
> > Perth WA - Glasair Super IIRG with Renesis 4 port, RD1C, EM3, EC3
> >
> > <Testing 16th March 18.jpeg>
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>=20