X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Todd Bartrim" Received: from mail-qt0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2c3) with ESMTPS id 9832518 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 04:37:03 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.177; envelope-from=bartrim@gmail.com Received: by mail-qt0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u19so84642160qta.3 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 01:37:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Rs2/kOrVXvBTkEzyHE+TZ/LSdwmXNBt0qFFeCMQ5GOQ=; b=JO7mvwcXDP24NTfz7Ejoh3tSTU5AZDDqDFb65CUTmvuD5hmTQx/tL9geVkeCyLfL1u ODZjFsAQidoLKdNXbY1+MoTca0fqh1fQR74bNTP1Xg4xP6VKqpkagZpCBoCcVLYLSqMa F5PNmHinhGDbTa9b/Exbqe8BBR6BOiU4/3ljJSppacf6hrMXjQoUaj35qBxPVi6Mjn8z s/8nriA929zTQLzxz/QH+9XgZzZarrIsMJyVAeKUygStOG+C8p7YMMtzoJGet5MSXOur 70PRphWTmP6kSx1i6OfICGxr16CHKn7zWA3b439IjHZoUB2Ya+N0sQZvkRsRZCNuhdlk Q3RQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Rs2/kOrVXvBTkEzyHE+TZ/LSdwmXNBt0qFFeCMQ5GOQ=; b=JO6UB6FXY5ZNcmFxEp+KK8CCaNN2mpIXkshVug5YbpikGil7WkQlQaTdfMBX9nRgjj Kh08FWF6S0fhcB1WVg/tZesEy9pIP7gSFqmWuKRVX4XhplNVt2hr3ZpM335A88hBiGG9 5hGNrQg/exz9FLteakYqGj84TTFgMetvb9+JAsroHcWOsRIummVUkBWjHBRy+apd6bfN NSRbGNbMFe/BF6CW4vAtz3lQHE+fdE21Gf5SP4GczuCG+jTLBCIrLYvyWKMG1xN7I9q0 4VsSJTo4QsDEARzNxnOVNvh0fwRT+csAgJMM1vZC0tp9MYvc8de9IgMXqoTxohRhyvBm ns3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxKu174e6xQngZDvme65xXwzBCLqHdfTu2X+cA1ZcBYeZt3Oq+4 ts9C1tYVCk6WEgKICGYZFf1hqrhtOQ== X-Received: by 10.200.38.204 with SMTP id 12mr16796061qtp.236.1497688605424; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 01:36:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 08:36:32 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Jet-Hot Ceramic Coating To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114108f64f819b055223cd72" --001a114108f64f819b055223cd72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I'm one of those that had my rotors coated back around 2001. My reaoning was that it would transfer less heat to the oil so therefore reduce my cooling requirements. Unfortunately I originally did not have an electronic boost controller and experienced an overboost on one eventful takeoff which led to me discovering that the rotary is indeed very reliable and can tolerate severe detonation and continue to produce enough power to safely complete a flight.... but won't start again afterwards. (The full story is in the archives and may be worth a read). Anyways, on teardown I found that most of the ceramic coating had flaked off, more on the rotor that had withstood the greater detonation damage to the apex seals. Now that wad probably quite a shock to the coating, far worse than they can normally expect to see. After I rebuilt without redoing the coating I good see no appreciable difference however I didn't have enough data collected from before to say for sure. Recently, however I rebuilt the engine and I could still see the remaing ceramic coating on the rotors that had survived the detonation incident. The engine probably had about 50 hours on it after that, so it would likely have lasted much better under normal use. Todd RV9 13Bturbo On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, 22:10 A R Goldman, wrote: > So this begs the question (at least to me) if we have a muffler in line > which you really can't coat in and out, will coating the header cause an > increase in thermal wear of the muffler since the exhaust gas will be > hotter? > > Rich > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 16, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Doug Lomheim > wrote: > > > > Doug > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > --001a114108f64f819b055223cd72 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm one of those that had my rotors coated back aroun= d 2001. My reaoning was that it would transfer less heat to the oil so ther= efore reduce my cooling requirements. Unfortunately I originally did not ha= ve an electronic boost controller and experienced an overboost on one event= ful takeoff which led to me discovering that the rotary is indeed very reli= able and can tolerate severe detonation and continue to produce enough powe= r to safely complete a flight.... but won't start again afterwards. (Th= e full story is in the archives and may be worth a read).
Anyways, on teardown I found that most of the ceramic coating had flaked of= f, more on the rotor that had withstood the greater detonation damage to th= e apex seals. Now that wad probably quite a shock to the coating, far worse= than they can normally expect to see.=C2=A0
=C2=A0 A= fter I rebuilt without redoing the coating I good see no appreciable differ= ence however I didn't have enough data collected from before to say for= sure.
=C2=A0 Recently, however I rebuilt the engine = and I could still see the remaing ceramic coating on the rotors that had su= rvived the detonation incident. The engine probably had about 50 hours on i= t after that, so it would likely have lasted much better under normal use.<= /div>

Todd
RV9 13Bturbo=C2=A0

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017= , 22:10 A R Goldman, <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
So this begs the question (at least to me) if we hav= e a muffler in line which you really can't coat in and out, will coatin= g the header cause an increase in thermal wear of the muffler since the exh= aust gas will be hotter?

Rich

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Doug Lomheim <flyrotary@lancaironline.net&g= t; wrote:
>
> Doug


--
Homepage:=C2=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0 =C2=A0http://mail= .lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
--001a114108f64f819b055223cd72--