X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1085202 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:24:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.69; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm63aec.bellsouth.net ([209.215.60.63]) by imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060429042321.JTKS24442.imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm63aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:23:21 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [209.215.60.63]) by ibm63aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060429042320.BWKB24508.ibm63aec.bellsouth.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:23:20 -0400 Message-ID: <4452EA39.1060502@bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:23:21 -0500 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Run and Static RPM Report References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob White wrote: >Hi Buly, > >There's a few things on the list he sent that doesn't sound quite >right. As long as I can do it without too much of a hassle, I guess I >will. The actual wording is "a ground run to max power in a nose high >attitude approaching an in flight stall". That sounds like an >invitation to do an inadvertent take-off if I ever heard one. When I >flew with the previous owner, the time from full power application to >lift off was about 5 seconds. > >I think the A&P may be a problem also. I need one because I didn't >build the airplane. He sounded OK when I first talked to him, but more >recently he's been talking about checking to make sure the plane was >built to plans and stuff. I think he's supposed to check the brakes, >make sure the flaps aren't falling off, etc. I think his implication >is that the original builder could modify anything he wanted to, but >that I can't. This view seems to me to go beyond the roll of the A&P >as I understand it. I may have to find another one that understands >experimentals. > >Bob W. > "The actual wording is "a ground run to max power in a nose high attitude approaching an in flight stall". " Hi Bob, That phrase is a fairly common one in documents about prep for 1st flight. It normally means to find a ditch, put the tail in it & tie it down. Then do your full throttle ground run. The idea is to test both the engine & fuel delivery systems with the plane in its max climb attitude without having to discover any limitations in flight. The key words are 'ground run' meaning to do it *on the ground*, not in flight. Remember that almost any homebuilt can achieve a much higher attitude in climbing flight than it can achieve in any takeoff roll. Hope that helps.... Charlie