X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.225] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.4) with ESMTP id 1406855 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:50:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.249.82.225; envelope-from=cozy4pilot@gmail.com Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i29so3573133wxd for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:50:03 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-priority:x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole:in-reply-to:importance; b=NWGAh8iGjYSqIFcRVGvCCXlajHri247+QpBI5PniUU3cjseOHG9Gj+OzYlcuRiopE00+xkaHWDGTDe8I8A/Zo6QwyLFUutFBtIuxkF3F4yXWWLaFPyLo1l9VgfHXnR0SutciIQslFoNFHuGfza62WYgj1V0T+eaa2UmfKu8BGk0= Received: by 10.70.70.7 with SMTP id s7mr16339221wxa; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from stevehome ( [71.55.75.37]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 40sm840950wrl.2006.09.17.05.50.02; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:50:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steve Brooks" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Flight test Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:50:42 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C6DA36.5B65B880" 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 V6.00.2800.1807 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C6DA36.5B65B880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of Al Gietzen Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 11:10 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Flight test Basically the reason for the low rpm numbers while flying level is because the power was pulled back. MAP was only 19”. What rpm do you get at 19” MAP? Al, I think that my RPM at that MAP is about 4400 RPM's, but I have a ground adjustable IVO, and I have changed it several times, trying to see what changes I get in climb performance vs cruise. I have flown quite a bit at 60-65% power, and I get a fuel burn rate of about 7-8 gallons per hour, flying at about 140 kts. I found that is probably my best "economy" cruise setting. The percent power readout was about 65%, but how meaningful is that since I see on the video of the engine monitor it showed 110% (290 hp) at 20” MAP as the power was pulled back at the top of the climb. All it means is that the mixture was too rich. Having to rely on a test pilot who is not that familiar with the engine operation, or the instrumentation; definitely is a drawback. But also, until I can get stable operation of the EC2, it’s hard to draw any conclusions. I know that there are different interpetations of the FAR's, but there have been builders who fly with the test pilot to do engine management and tuning. On those first few flights, when you are trying to figure out a new plane, and watching all of the guages, engine tuning is definitely a challenge. I think that two pilots for that task is a much safer approach. Steve Brooks ------=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C6DA36.5B65B880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of Al=20 Gietzen
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 11:10 = AM
To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Flight=20 test

Basically = the=20 reason for the low rpm numbers while flying level is because the power = was=20 pulled back. MAP was only 19=94. What rpm do you get at = 19=94=20 MAP?

Al, I think that my RPM at that MAP is = about 4400=20 RPM's, but I have a ground adjustable IVO, and I have changed it = several=20 times, trying to see what changes I get in climb performance vs=20 cruise. I have flown quite a bit at 60-65% power, and I get = a fuel=20 burn rate of about 7-8 gallons per hour, flying at about 140 = kts. I=20 found that is probably my best "economy" cruise=20 setting.

The = percent=20 power readout was about 65%, but how meaningful is that since I see on = the=20 video of the engine monitor it showed 110% (290 hp) at 20=94 MAP as = the power=20 was pulled back at the top of the climb. All it means is that = the=20 mixture was too rich. Having to rely on a test pilot who is not = that=20 familiar with the engine operation, or the instrumentation; definitely = is a=20 drawback. But also, until I can get stable operation of the EC2, = it=92s hard to=20 draw any conclusions.

I know that there are different = interpetations of the=20 FAR's, but there have been builders who fly with the test pilot to do = engine=20 management and tuning. On those first few flights, when you are = trying=20 to figure out a new plane, and watching all of the guages, engine = tuning is=20 definitely a challenge. I think that two pilots for that task is = a much=20 safer approach.

Steve Brooks

------=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C6DA36.5B65B880--