X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.100] (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 934834 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 May 2005 13:18:39 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-189-178.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.189.178]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j46HHoLw006641 for ; Fri, 6 May 2005 13:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003701c5525f$8d600c60$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Seal Hrdness Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:17:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C5523E.061C5FE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C5523E.061C5FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, not certain I am following your thought. Are you indicating that = my seals became very hot as a result of the malfunction? - please = elaborate. If they did I presume you are saying that they might have = had their hardness reduced by the extreme heat? Just the failed rotor = seals or both? I was pumping a lot of gas through the engine trying to keep the rpms = up. Of course the fuel going through the damaged rotor was just blowing = through most likely. However, I really don't know how significant the difference in hardness = between my seals and Rusty's. This may mean nothing or could be = significant. Perhaps Tracy will come back home and give an opinion. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bill Dube=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:38 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Seal Hrdness You do have to "temper" this information a bit (so to speak.) = It is more than likely that your seals became VERY hot in the last few = minutes of engine operation.=20 At 07:25 PM 5/5/2005, you wrote: Thanks Bob, =20 Verrrryyyyy Innnteerreessstinnngg. So it does appear that my seals = were "soft" at least in comparison of the Hurley seals of Rusty. Only = one area of the six areas you tested on my seal was above Rockwell 30 - = whereas 11 out of the 12 areas tested on Rusty seal were above Rockwell = 30. Also one hit on my seal indicated a Rockwell hardness of only 23.1. = I am not knowledgeable enough to know if those difference are a major = significance or not - but it does show the metal in my seal of less = hardness than that of Rusty. =20 Your findings plus (as you noted) the ridge of metal gouged out of = the seal by apparently its rubbing against the top edge of the apex slot = indicates to me that my seals were likely less that they should have = been. =20 Appreciate you taking the time and trouble, Bob. Should have sent = you one of Tracy's to test as well - but mine were all in the engine = {:>) =20 Best Regards =20 Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bob Perkinson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:28 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Seal Hrdness OK here are the HARD numbers, but first let me give some detail on = what equipment I used and how the tests were conducted. The equipment = used was an Equotip 2 portable hardness tester, manufactured by Proceq = Sa, Switzerland. The following is an explanation snagged from there web site. "The EQUOTIP 2 metal hardness tester is a light weight, yet = powerful portable hardness tester for all metallic materials. It = measures the Leeb value (L) for materials, which is a ratio of the = impact velocity to the rebound velocity. This L value is then converted = to standard hardness scales such as Rockwell, Brinell, Shore, and = Vickers using conversion tables stored in the display unit and generated = from the original Leeb block." I had mentioned in a previous post that the numbers that I = generated when testing the stock seal were jumping around. Well like = the old saying says, "when all else fails read the instructions." The = seals are not thick enough to be tested without providing a good = support, in fact they are at the minimum thickness for the impact device = that is used. So the seals were coupled to a heavy support base for the = test.=20 The seals were tested in three locations on each side, the = straight side end, center and the corner seal end. Each set of figures = represents 3 impacts, the first figure is the LOWEST "L" value in the = series, the second is the HIGHEST "L" value, the third is the RANGE the = forth is the MEAN "L", the fifth is the HARDNESS. In the first series, = "L" value is converted to Brinell hardness, in the second series "L" is = converted to Rockwell. Min Max Range Mean Hardness Brinell Rusty Duffy Side 1 574 581 7 577 298 574 590 16 580 302 578 597 19 585 307 Average 302.33333 Side2 560 573 13 566 286 569 584 15 578 300 586 598 12 591 314 Average 300 Min Max Range Mean Hardness Rockwell Side 1 571 593 22 580 31.4 578 582 4 580 31.4 561 563 2 562 28.8 Average 30.533333 Side 2 576 578 2 577 31 578 583 5 580 31.4 583 587 4 585 32.1 Average 31.5 Rusty's Broken Seal. Only tested in 2 places Min Max Range Mean Hardness Brinell Side 1 571 600 29 584 306 565 588 23 576 297 Average 301.5 Side 2 588 592 4 589 312 580 600 20 587 310 Average 311 Min Max Range Mean Hardness Rockwell Side 1 558 580 22 570 30.1 576 588 12 584 32.2 Average 31.15 Side 2 576 588 12 583 32.1 587 592 5 589 33 Average 32.55 Ed Anderson Min Max Range Mean Hardness Brinell Side 1 525 554 29 541 260 524 549 25 536 255 548 562 14 557 277 Average 264 Side 2 557 584 27 571 292 566 577 11 573 294 574 577 3 575 298 Average 294.66667 Min Max Range Mean Hardness Rockwell Side 1 534 562 28 550 26.9 516 538 22 531 23.1 530 558 20 549 26.8 Average 25.6 Side 2 562 588 26 577 31.2 555 68 13 564 29.2 554 578 24 567 29.6 Average 30 I can only speculate on the difference between hardness values on = Ed's seal. This seal had a noticeable ridge worn in both sides from the = apparent rocking motion in the rotor apex slot. I am not a Professional Engineer, But I did sleep in my own bed = last night. (I think!) Bob Perkinson Hendersonville, TN. RV9A If Nothing Changes Nothing Changes! -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C5523E.061C5FE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill, not certain I am following your=20 thought.  Are you indicating that my seals became very hot as a = result of=20 the malfunction? - please elaborate.  If they did I presume you are = saying=20 that they might have had their hardness reduced by the extreme = heat?  =20 Just the failed rotor seals or both?
I was pumping a lot of gas through the = engine=20 trying to keep the rpms up.  Of course the fuel going through the = damaged=20 rotor was just blowing through most likely.
 
However, I really don't know how = significant the=20 difference in hardness between my seals and Rusty's.  This may mean = nothing=20 or could be significant.  Perhaps Tracy will come back home and = give an=20 opinion.
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Bill = Dube=20
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 = 12:38 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Seal=20 Hrdness

        Y= ou do=20 have to "temper" this information a bit (so to speak.) It is more than = likely=20 that your seals became VERY hot in the last few minutes of engine = operation.=20

At 07:25 PM 5/5/2005, you wrote:
Thanks=20 Bob,
 
Verrrryyyyy Innnteerreessstinnngg.  So it does appear = that my=20 seals were "soft" at least in comparison of the Hurley seals of = Rusty. =20 Only one area of the six areas you tested on my seal was above = Rockwell 30 -=20 whereas 11 out of the 12 areas tested on Rusty seal were above = Rockwell=20 30.  Also one hit on my seal indicated a Rockwell hardness of = only=20 23.1. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if those difference are = a major=20 significance or not - but it does show the metal in my seal of less = hardness=20 than that of Rusty.
 
  Your findings plus (as you noted) the ridge of metal = gouged=20 out of the seal by apparently its rubbing against the top edge of = the apex=20 slot indicates to me that my seals were likely less that they should = have=20 been.
 
Appreciate you taking the time and trouble, Bob.  = Should have=20 sent you one of Tracy's to test as well - but mine were all in the = engine=20 {:>)
 
Best=20 Regards
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob = Perkinson=20
To: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:28 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Seal Hrdness
OK here are the = HARD=20 numbers, but first let me give some detail on what equipment I = used and=20 how the tests were conducted.  The equipment used was an = Equotip 2=20 portable hardness tester, manufactured by Proceq Sa,=20 Switzerland.



 
The following = is an=20 explanation snagged from there web site.



 
=93The = EQUOTIP 2 metal=20 hardness tester is a light weight, yet powerful portable hardness = tester=20 for all metallic materials.  It measures the Leeb value (L) = for=20 materials, which is a ratio of the impact velocity to the rebound=20 velocity.  This L value is then converted to standard = hardness scales=20 such as Rockwell, Brinell, Shore, and Vickers using conversion = tables=20 stored in the display unit and generated from the original Leeb=20 block.=94



 
I had mentioned = in a=20 previous post that the numbers that I generated when testing the = stock=20 seal were jumping around.  Well like the old saying says, = =93when all=20 else fails read the instructions.=94  The seals are not thick = enough to=20 be tested without providing a good support, in fact they are at = the=20 minimum thickness for the impact device that is used.  So the = seals=20 were coupled to a heavy support base for the test.



 
The seals were = tested in=20 three locations on each side, the straight side end, center and = the corner=20 seal end.  Each set of figures represents 3 impacts, the = first figure=20 is the LOWEST =93L=94 value in the series, the second is the = HIGHEST =93L=94=20 value, the third is the RANGE the forth is the MEAN =93L=94, the = fifth is the=20 HARDNESS.  In the first series, =93L=94 value is converted to = Brinell=20 hardness, in the second series =93L=94 is converted to=20 Rockwell.



 


 
Min

Max

Range

Mean

Hardness = Brinell

Rusty Duffy



 


 


 


 


 
Side 1

574

581

7

577

298



574

590

16

580

302



578

597

19

585

307

Average



 


 


 


302.33333



 


 


 


 


 


 
Side2

560

573

13

566

286



569

584

15

578

300



586

598

12

591

314

Average



 


 


 


300



 


 


 


 


 


 


 
Min

Max

Range

Mean

Hardness = Rockwell

Side 1

571

593

22

580

31.4



578

582

4

580

31.4



561

563

2

562

28.8

Average



 


 


 


30.533333



 


 


 


 


 


 
Side 2

576

578

2

577

31



578

583

5

580

31.4



583

587

4

585

32.1

Average



 


 


 


31.5



 


 


 


 


 


 
Rusty's Broken Seal.  Only = tested in 2=20 places

Min

Max

Range

Mean

Hardness = Brinell

Side 1

571

600

29

584

306



565

588

23

576

297

Average



 


 


 


301.5



 


 


 


 


 


 
Side 2

588

592

4

589

312



580

600

20

587

310

Average



 


 


 


311



 


 


 


 


 


 


 
Min

Max

Range

Mean

Hardness = Rockwell

Side 1

558

580

22

570

30.1



576

588

12

584

32.2

Average



 


 


 


31.15



 


 


 


 


 


 
Side 2

576

588

12

583

32.1



587

592

5

589

33

Average



 


 


 


32.55



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 
Ed Anderson

Min

Max

Range

Mean

Hardness = Brinell

Side 1

525

554

29

541

260



524

549

25

536

255



548

562

14

557

277

Average



 


 


 


264



 


 


 


 


 


 
Side 2

557

584

27

571

292



566

577

11

573

294



574

577

3

575

298

Average



 


 


 


294.66667



 


 


 


 


 


 


 
Min

Max

Range

Mean

Hardness = Rockwell

Side 1

534

562

28

550

26.9



516

538

22

531

23.1



530

558

20

549

26.8

Average



 


 


 


25.6



 


 


 


 


 


 
Side 2

562

588

26

577

31.2



555

68

13

564

29.2



554

578

24

567

29.6

Average



 


 


 


30



 


 
I can only = speculate on the=20 difference between hardness values on Ed=92s seal.  This seal = had a=20 noticeable ridge worn in both sides from the apparent rocking = motion in=20 the rotor apex slot.



 
I am not a = Professional=20 Engineer, But I did sleep in my own bed last night. (I=20 think!)



 


 
Bob Perkinson

Hendersonville, TN.

RV9A

If Nothing Changes

Nothing Changes!



>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html= 

>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

>>  Archive:   =
http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C5523E.061C5FE0--