|
|
Ok, Got it. I understand now.
Well the seal I sent to Bill was an undamaged seal (so not likely to have been heated by friction to that extreme) and it was "softer" than Rusty's seal. I sent both parts of the damaged seal to Tracy but uncertain whether he will do a hardness test. But, you are right, likely inconclusive on the outcome. But, I do believe that softer seals and sloppy slots were part of the damage equation.
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: "BillDube@killacycle.com" <billdube@killacycle.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:42 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Seal Hrdness
At 11:17 AM 5/6/2005, you wrote:
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 your seals became cocked and jammed against the housing walls, the friction might get them very hot. Perhaps red hot. If they got very hot then it is possible that the hardness was reduced by this heat cycle.
My point is that unless you do a hardness test on a seal (or a portion of a seal) that you are certain never became overheated, you can't be sure if the lack of hardness was the cause, or the result, of the engine failure.
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?
If the undamaged seals in the other (undamaged) rotor are soft, you have found the cause of the failure. If they are all hard on the undamaged rotor, you still are not 100% sure if one or more of the seals on the failed rotor were soft, but it is less likely.
Bill Dube <LED@Killacycle.com>
http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|