Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.190.38.146; envelope-from=prvt_pilot@yahoo.com
Message-ID: <20041101133544.10213.qmail@web51104.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 05:35:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Brooks <prvt_pilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Phase one complete, official climb results disappointing
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-493766@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Rusty,

I also want to pass along my congratulations to you. 
I thought that it was taking you a long time to get to
40 hours, but I may actually beat your time at the
rate I'm going.

Dave,
Please keep me informed about what you are doing with
the T04.  I'm very seriously leaning toward going that
route also.  The SS manifolds available would
certainly be lighter than the stock one.  

Finding a good heat shield for the T04 may be a
challenge, but I have seen a few available.  Most of
the are SS though, and it would be nice to find one
out of aluminum.

Steve Brooks
--- DaveLeonard <daveleonard@cox.net> wrote:

> MessageRusty, If it makes you feel any better, I am
> getting less than 1000
> FPM.  This is a combination of low compression
> rotors, non-ported engine,
> intake runners too long and poorly designed, and the
> exhaust going through a
> turbine housing.  None the less, it still kicks ass
> over any Cessna and is a
> joy to fly.  Every time I tell myself that I believe
> it for 10-15 min. :-)
> 
> Good job on getting those impressive numbers.  I'm
> really jealous.
> 
> Bout time on the 40 hrs. must be a good feeling. I
> just flew my 79th hr
> today.  (Not much better than grilling steak and
> drinking beer).  The TO4
> will be mounted before the new year.  I will start
> making preparations to
> keep it cool...  may include some spray bars.
> 
> Dave Leonard (Only goal in life is to beat Tracy and
> Rusty at the next
> Sun-n-fun)
>   Greetings,
> 
> 
>   Posted below are the details of today's final
> phase one flight.  I'm truly
> at a loss to explain how I saw 3000 fpm yesterday,
> because I sure couldn't
> do it today.  I know I've seen 2500+ on a couple of
> occasions before, but
> not today.  Sorry to get everyone (particularly
> myself) overly excited about
> the climb rate.  I'm still not sure how I'm getting
> 500 fpm less than Tracy,
> while running the same prop, and rpm.  Oh well, the
> testing will never
> really end, which is what keeps it all interesting.
> 
> 
> 
>   Cheers,
> 
>   Rusty (grilling steak, and drinking beer now)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   10-31-04  1.9 hours  /  40.0 total
> 
> 
> 
>   I finished up the climb testing, and did some
> descent testing.
> Unfortunately, I must have been seeing things
> yesterday when I though I saw
> 3000 rpm.  Either that, or it was a bit of an
> extended zoom climb.  The real
> figure is 2222 fpm, which is almost depressing, but
> it was 85 degrees, and I
> have full fuel, so I'm sure I can improve this with
> better conditions.  The
> goal is still 3000 fpm, but I'm wondering if I'll
> make it now.
> 
> 
> 
>   The main climb test was done at 4000 ft.  I
> started at 3500, then
> established a climb at the designated speed.  Once
> it was stabilized, and I
> passed through 4000 ft, I recorded the reading from
> the VSI.  This was just
> to get an idea of the best ROC, without regard to
> the actual figure.
> 
> 
> 
>   Climb testing :  mph  /  fps climb
> 
>     90  /  2100
> 
>   100  /  2200
> 
>   110  /  2000
> 
>   120  /  1900
> 
>   130  /  1700
> 
>   140  /  1400
> 
> 
> 
>   Since 100 mph was the best, I dropped to 1500
> feet, established 100 mph at
> full throttle climb, and timed how long it took to
> get from 2000 to 3000
> feet.  The average of a few runs was 27 seconds,
> which calculates to 2222
> fpm.  If nothing else, it shows that my VSI is
> pretty accurate.
> 
> 
> 
>   I also did some descent rate testing around 3000
> feet.  Basically, I went
> to idle, and noted the VSI descent rate at the
> following speeds.
> 
> 
> 
>   Mph  /  fps descent
> 
>     80  /  700
> 
>     90  /  900
> 
>   100  /  1100
> 
> 
> 
>   I had added a trim tab to the (new) rudder, and
> found that it wasn't quite
> enough.  It's amazing the power it has though.  In
> high power cruise, I
> still need a little right rudder (added more trim
> after the flight), but in
> descent testing, I had to add a bunch of left rudder
> to counteract the trim
> tab.
> 
> 
> 
>   I also tried to un-squeeze the trailing edge of
> the new left aileron, to
> try to correct a little left rolling motion that was
> aggravated when I
> replaced the aileron.  It may have been a little
> better, but it still took
> some trim.  After the flight, I gently squeezed the
> right aileron a little,
> so we'll see if that helps more.
> 
> 
> 
>   Finally, this concludes the phase one testing.  I
> had to circle around the
> area for the last couple tenths to be legal, but
> it's done.   The airframe
> itself has behaved just as any RV should, and since
> I did fairly through
> airframe testing on my previous RV-8, I was able to
> get through the testing
> of this plane fairly quickly.    Just gotta love
> Van's RV's :-)
> 
> 
> 
>   Now that the official time is over, I plan to pull
> the cowl, and do some
> work on the oil temp scoop.  I'm also going to
> vastly improve the TB air
> inlet that's in the right radiator duct.
>