Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 19:05:59 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 2008976 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:45:12 -0500 Received: from Epijk@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.159.1b609c5f (4539) for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:45:01 -0500 (EST) From: Epijk@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <159.1b609c5f.2b71561d@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:45:01 EST Subject: Re: [LML] new aircraft-new engine break-in X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_159.1b609c5f.2b71561d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10637 --part1_159.1b609c5f.2b71561d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/2003 6:56:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, Newlan2dl@aol.com writes: > I've been reading about breaking in a new or rebuilt engine and also about > testing your new plane. The obvious conclusion is that they are really at > odds. Dan: In addition to your correct observation (above), there are also the depressing statistics on the number of engine-related accidents (large) during the first ten hours of the test flight programs on experimental category aircraft. I have done a few test-flight programs on new experimentals, and I can say from firsthand experience that when you are sorting out the peculiarities of a new aircraft is not the time to be trying to debug engine installation problems. In order to somewhat reduce that risk, as well as to assure a properly-broken-in engine, we (EPI, Inc.) have a service where we install a customer's firewall-forward powerplant on our computer-instrumented dyno and do the break-in under controlled and well-documented conditions, measuring torque, RPM (hence power output), all CHT and EGT, oil temperatures and pressures at several points, fuel flow, several fuel pressures, as well as ambient conditions and plenum charge temperature. (pictures at the bottom of the page at: http://www.epi-eng.com/engsys1.htm) I would expect that many of the high-quality engine shops around the country have such a service available (test-cell run-in). Try LyCon (Visalia CA) as a start. Jack Kane --part1_159.1b609c5f.2b71561d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/2003 6:56:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, Newlan2dl@aol.com writes:


I've been reading about breaking in a new or rebuilt engine and also about
testing your new plane.  The obvious conclusion is that they are really at
odds. 


Dan:
In addition to your correct observation (above), there are also the depressing statistics on the number of engine-related accidents (large) during the first ten hours of the test flight programs on experimental category aircraft.

I have done a few test-flight programs on new experimentals, and I can say from firsthand experience that when you are sorting out the peculiarities of a new aircraft is not the time to be trying to debug engine installation problems.

In order to somewhat reduce that risk, as well as to assure a properly-broken-in engine, we (EPI, Inc.) have a service where we install a customer's firewall-forward powerplant on our computer-instrumented dyno and do the break-in under controlled and well-documented conditions, measuring torque, RPM (hence power output), all CHT and EGT, oil temperatures and pressures at several points, fuel flow, several fuel pressures, as well as ambient conditions and plenum charge temperature.
(pictures at the bottom of the page at:  http://www.epi-eng.com/engsys1.htm)

I would expect that many of the high-quality engine shops around the country have such a service available (test-cell run-in). Try LyCon (Visalia CA) as a start.

Jack Kane --part1_159.1b609c5f.2b71561d_boundary--