Return-Path: Received: from imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 552402 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:40:25 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.68; envelope-from=sladerj@bellsouth.net Received: from JSLADE ([209.214.14.32]) by imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20041201143953.BNPL1976.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@JSLADE> for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:39:53 -0500 From: "John Slade" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: John's testing Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:39:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006A_01C4D789.B5DDCD40" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C4D789.B5DDCD40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MessageWhat's the current plan wrt the EM-2? It almost sounded like you were planning to install enough analog instruments to fly the plane. Was that temporary for testing, or permanent to replace the EM-2, or perhaps permanent in addition to the EM-2. I was thinking of running analog gauges as a crosscheck, at least for a while. I have analog fuel pressure and MAP, and I find myself using these instead of reading the EM2. They're much easier for a quick glance type of check. The EM2 can sit in the background and yell at me (literally) if something gets out of range. I know a lot of folks are waiting anxiously for news on the modified turbo. What was the longest number of hours you were able to run one of the stock turbos before they blew? I would only figure this will include "hard running" at cruise. In other words, have you got a figure in mind as far as when you will say the new turbo has at least outlived the old ones? I didn't really do a lot of "hard running" on the stock turbos. The first turbo was starved of oil, so I dont think that counts. It lasted about 10 minutes at high speed / high altitude. The test that blew the second turbo was about 1.5 hrs, but I think it was overspeed, not duration that did it. Now I know how, I'd bet I could blow a good stock turbo in a few minutes, or keep it alive for ever. :) I'm taking it a little easier on the new turbo for now. It feels like it needs more rpm to come into its own. Right now it feels like a car going up a hill in top gear. After a certain point you can press the gas all you want - it doesn't make any difference. Once I get the engine running smooth and can establish good cruise numbers with my pants on I'll probably get the prop cut back a bit. I don't think it's a matter of the new turbo "outliving" the old ones in terms of time. John Hang in there. Rusty ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C4D789.B5DDCD40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
What's the current plan = wrt the=20 EM-2?  It almost sounded like you were planning to install=20 enough analog instruments to fly the plane.  Was that = temporary for=20 testing, or permanent to replace the EM-2, or perhaps permanent in = addition=20 to the EM-2.    
I was = thinking of=20 running analog gauges as a crosscheck, at least for a while. I have = analog=20 fuel pressure and MAP, and I find myself using these instead of reading = the EM2.=20 They're much easier for a quick glance type of check. The EM2 can sit in = the=20 background and yell at me (literally) if something gets out of range.=20
 
I know a lot of folks are = waiting=20 anxiously for news on the modified turbo.  What was the longest = number of=20 hours you were able to run one of the stock turbos before they = blew?  I=20 would only figure this will include "hard running" at cruise.  In = other=20 words, have you got a figure in mind as far as when you will say the new = turbo=20 has at least outlived the old ones?   
 
I = didn't really do=20 a lot of "hard running" on the stock turbos. The first turbo was starved = of oil,=20 so I dont think that counts. It lasted about 10 minutes at high speed / = high=20 altitude. The test that blew the second turbo was about 1.5 hrs, = but I=20 think it was overspeed, not duration that did it. Now I know how, I'd = bet I=20 could blow a good stock turbo in a few minutes, or keep it alive for = ever.=20 :)
 
I'm taking = it a little=20 easier on the new turbo for now. It feels like it needs more rpm to come = into=20 its own. Right now it feels like a car going up a hill in top gear. = After a=20 certain point you can press the gas all you want - it doesn't make any=20 difference. Once I get the engine running smooth and can establish good = cruise=20 numbers with my pants on I'll probably get the prop cut back a bit. I = don't=20 think it's a matter of the new turbo "outliving" the old ones in terms = of time.=20
 
John
 
 
 
 
 
Hang in = there.
 
Rusty
 
 
 
 
 


------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C4D789.B5DDCD40--