Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.68; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <list-1405798@logan.com>
References: <list-1405798@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <9DA14A0C-9D21-465A-AC97-648C672D13D1@bellsouth.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Flight test
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:39:27 -0400
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

Hi Al, glad to hear you are making progress. It sounds like all of us =20=

go down the same path of initial testing, some adjustments and than =20
more testing. I agree with Steve that you are lugging the engine. On =20
take off I run the engine at 6500-7000 rpm. That's where the best =20
power is, and the prop develops the most thrust. I know people are =20
trying to get the same numbers as Lycoming guys, but we can do better =20=

with our engines. For initial testing I like the IVO prop much better =20=

since you can let the engine run at it's best rpm. Good that you have =20=

the water temps under control. I noticed if I go past 240F on mine =20
the power starts dropping.
my plane also had slight roll to the left and I shimmed one wing, but =20=

have not flown it yet. I also have an electric roll trim that I like. =20=

You should start flying with the test pilot and get some feel for it. =20=

That's what I did.
Again, let the engine rev higher, since right now your performance =20
numbers for the same weight  are very close to my engine, and should =20
be 50% higher?
Bulent "Buly" Aliev
FXE Ft lauderdale, FL
Making a new exhaust w/muffler

On Sep 16, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Steve Brooks wrote:

> Al,
> Great news on the flight.
>
> I don't recall what you prop arrangement is, but the RPM's that you =20=

> have listed sound pretty low.  Even with a variable pitch prop, I'd =20=

> think that you'd want 2250-2300 at the prop, in cruise.
>
> I can definitely relate to the high oil temperatures.  I fought =20
> with mine for quite a while before I finally added additional inlet =20=

> area.  In my case I was using the main NACA scoop for everything.  =20
> Ended up installing 2 armpit scoops @ 25 SQ IN each.  One for the =20
> oil cooler, and the other for the intercooler and engine inlet air.
>
> I just wonder if higher RPMs wouldn't improve cooling by increased =20
> flow.
>
> Steve Brooks
> Cozy MKIV N75CZ
> Turbo 13B
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20=

> On Behalf Of Al Gietzen
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:09 PM
> To: Rotary motors in aircraft
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Flight test
>
> Finally got the proper alignment of the planets (basically test =20
> pilot schedule) for further flight of Velocity 755V =96 20B.  Plane =20=

> was in the air for =BD hour this time, basically at level cruise =20
> orbiting the airport.  OAT was about 90F and flight was at DA of =20
> about 7000=92.
>
>
> Since the first flight when oil temps were high, I added a =20
> temporary ram scoop under the =91wing root=92 oil cooler inlet.  Oil =20=

> temp reached near 230 during climb but later stabilized at 200 - =20
> 205F.  Coolant stabilized at 180-185F.
>
>
> I have video recording of EM2 display, and this time the pilot =20
> remembered to push the page button, so I have lots of data.  For =91% =20=

> power=92 readout of 65-70%, engine rpm was 4450, prop 2050 rpm, IAS =20=

> (according to pilot) was about 145 kts.  TAS readout on EM2 was =20
> 165-170 kts, but my calcs indicate this is about 5 kts too high.  =20
> Fuel burn was indicating 16-18 gph running rich of peak.
>
>
> The in-cowl radiator is handling most of the cooling load; with the =20=

> wing root rad being very ineffective.  This is consistent with the =20
> first flight results on the oil temps with the matching wing root =20
> oil cooler.  The scoop added for the OC improved the air flow, but =20
> it is still marginal, with oil delta T of about 20F and air delta T =20=

> of about 100F.  It is likely the main issue is with the exit =20
> fairings.  At least now it flies stably, so I can do some other =20
> changes and see the effects =96 hopefully get a differential pressure =20=

> measurement set up.
>
>
> Takeoff roll of about 1500=92 at 1900# weight is quite good =20
> considering fixed pitch prop.  It accelerates from rolling start to =20=

> 60-65 kts nose lift in 6-7 seconds.  This with an 85=94 pitch prop.  =20=

> Something special about Catto props.
>
>
> The thing looks and sounds great, and I have to be happy that it =20
> went up, stayed up for =BD hr, and made a perfect landing.  Main =20
> issues right now are on-going problem with EC2 data corruption; =20
> apparently unique to my installation, and possibly =91noise=92 =
related; =20
> and the need for right aileron input in order to go straight, =20
> suggesting a need for wing incidence adjustment.
>
>
> Al
>
>
>