Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 407959 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:34:38 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.65; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20040913003409.BMKS19186.imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:34:09 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: high oil pressure and coolers Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:34:32 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c49929$703be9a0$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C498FF.8765E1A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C498FF.8765E1A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I did try a Peterson in line filter with dash 12 fittings and a 60 = micron element to try to save some weight in the main pressure line. It = collapsed the element at full tilt and ruined the weekend for me. But that was with = the Peterson pump, not the stock pump. I think a single filter with a 40 = micron element is too restrictive by a good margin. Very good to hear from you again Lynn! I was hoping you were doing = well, but just too busy to follow the list. =20 =20 The statement about a single 40 micron element being too restrictive re-affirms my suspicion that something wasn't right. I have to admit, = that I didn't even pull the element out of it, since it has so few hours on = it. I will absolutely do that, and see if there's any sign of the element = being collapsed. At this point, I could switch to a 60 micron element, but = might be better off finding a new oil filter solution. =20 =20 By mid week (Ivan permitting), I'll have the fitting that I'll use to = test the oil pressure out of the engine. That will give me a differential pressure across the evap core, and filter. I'll try it first with the current element, so I can see just what the evap core was seeing when it failed. It will also give me a comparison if I try the 60 micron = element. =20 I'm starting to wonder if maybe I collapsed the element, and restricted = the flow to the point where it cause the evap core to fail. Restricting the = oil flow volume would also cause higher temps. Maybe it's just as simple as that. =20 The peak oil temp of 210 should be of no concern. Not good for = continuous operation. Would temps of 220-230 be detrimental to the engine for climb (minutes = at a time), so long as we keep oil temps below 200 for cruise (hours at a = time) ? As always thanks for your valuable information. =20 BTW, are you going to be able to make Tracy's fly-in next month? I, and = I'm sure others, would be willing to contribute to your airfare if you can = make it down. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (gotta figure out this 912S too) ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C498FF.8765E1A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

I did try a Peterson in line filter with dash 12 = fittings and a=20 60 micron
element to try to save some weight in the main pressure = line. It=20 collapsed the
element at full tilt and ruined the weekend for me. But = that=20 was with the
Peterson pump, not the stock pump. I think a single = filter with=20 a 40 micron element
is too restrictive by a good margin.

Very = good to hear from=20 you again Lynn!  I was hoping you were doing well, but just too = busy to=20 follow the list. 
 
The = statement about a=20 single 40 micron element being too restrictive re-affirms my suspicion = that=20 something wasn't right.  I have to admit, that I didn't even pull = the=20 element out of it, since it has so few hours on it.  I will = absolutely do=20 that, and see if there's any sign of the element being collapsed.  = At this=20 point, I could switch to a 60 micron element, but might be better off = finding a=20 new oil filter solution.  
 
By mid week (Ivan=20 permitting), I'll have the fitting that I'll use to test the oil = pressure=20 out of the engine.  That will give me a differential pressure = across=20 the evap core, and filter.  I'll try it first with = the=20 current element, so I can see just what the evap core was seeing = when it=20 failed.  It will also give me a comparison if I try the 60=20 micron element.   
 
I'm = starting to wonder=20 if maybe I collapsed the element, and restricted the flow to the point = where it=20 cause the evap core to fail.  Restricting the oil flow volume would = also=20 cause higher temps.  Maybe it's just as simple as=20 that.    

The peak oil temp of 210 should be of no concern. Not good for = continuous=20 operation.

Would temps of 220-230 be = detrimental=20 to the engine for climb (minutes at a time), so long as we keep oil = temps=20 below 200 for cruise (hours at a time) ? 

As always thanks for = your valuable=20 information.
 
BTW, are you going to = be able to make=20 Tracy's fly-in next month?  I, and I'm sure others, would be = willing to=20 contribute to your airfare if you can make it down. 
 
Cheers,
Rusty (gotta figure out = this 912S=20 too)



 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C498FF.8765E1A0--