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 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2395992 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:04:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.249.82.225; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i27so535202wxd for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=JxorWj3vkuOG7tN573CL7HvpSSnJW31U8BF4YllMf1s=; b=nSS2N8sXXeVibCkdIdMVY8vIM24z5zoFnV2l9hXYKsI+AhXVmZYpIE6eixArQhcB+VRp7bU80rkpuTNGnKMhNrKRRW7oFVkYfdGKeqHmZZSRVvBO8S87oA5UteT+2kvOaIiPNPAQ1wIyaXQhi591I0xfFYEDdt6BbZocwkpUjjY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=SVCBwA7ATfb4pmb/DrWJGz9yNCb1xwTs6aT3IKVw3nLHr2OwkCw3rAJ/hzyC4uo5AgeHT5KdL6IhGaaXDeaeuBogX+9DSD8hDe8o5/zNoexd/6AuJnY8El7QHT/HFdL+obiJ7pyKTrTfIeKH0nnFrIwkcEpJuDCjvBXpADhWpRM= Received: by 10.90.119.15 with SMTP id r15mr3373468agc.1192817048068; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.75.8 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5cf132c0710191104o6f50a410ma31001eacaef72a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:04:08 -0500 From: "Mark Steitle" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B testing In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_12315_24500391.1192817048059" References: ------=_Part_12315_24500391.1192817048059 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Tracy, So, I take it that the last schematic you posted with the solid state relay is officially "approved for use"? I went ahead and ordered the p/n you gav= e me and have it sitting on the shelf waiting for the go-ahead. As for the CAS gap, I ended up at .020". I found that opening the gap further did not improve performance, in fact it made it worse. Looking forward to hearing it run next weekend. Its hard to believe that a year has passed already. Thanks for the update, Mark S. On 10/19/07, Tracy Crook wrote: > > After what seems like years of testing (actual engine Hobbs time is only > 6.8 hrs) I finally got a clean test run on the 20B. It ran flawlessly > from idle to almost WOT (28.5" Hg. MAP) in today's run. Static RPM at > this setting was 5950 which was higher than expected with a 72 x 104 3 > blade prop. Blade stall could be a factor but the prop blast was enough = to > rip the hearing protectors off my head. > > Bottom line is that the configuration I sent previously (in schematic jpg= ) > is the tested and approved setup for the EC2 20B controller. > > Tracy > > Here's today's test log entry for the details: > > > 10-19-07 > > The problem with engine surge and roughness at around 3500 rpm turned out > to be a failed diode on the rotor 2 secondary injector. I believe this > must have failed due to the high transient voltages that were present bef= ore > adding the diode clamp and the solid state relay. The schottky diodes > only have a maximum reverse voltage rating of 100 volts. When replacing > this part, I also installed diodes on the primary injectors. After doin= g > this, the engine ran perfectly in a previous test run until reaching the > high rpm miss at 5150 rpm, at which point it ran very rough. > > > > Today's test was to test the effect of reducing the Crank sensor to > trigger wheel spacing to about .032" by removing the .062 washer which I = had > previously used to increase the spacing (~ .097"). (this engine > installation has the Renesis Crank sensor setup) The theory was that the > EC2 front end circuit was being overloaded and that a reduction of proble= m > rpm threshold would confirm this when the spacing was reduced. The test > showed just the opposite effect. The high rpm miss was completely gone > and I was able to run the engine at almost full throttle reaching an rpm > over 5950 at about 28.5" Hg. WOT was not tested due to fears that the > rail restraint might fail and nose the aircraft over. I am overjoyed wit= h > today's test results although I have not determined the exact phenomenon > that caused the problem. > > > > FBW throttle control continues to work well. > > > > The only negative indications were oil pressure at high rpm which was > about 59 PSI at 5900 with an oil temp of 190 F. The oil pressure does > not fall very much at lower rpm (2500 =96 3500) where it is about 55 psi.= Not > sure if this is due to pressure drops in the system (the sensor is at > the lowest pressure point in the system) or instrument error. (the EM2 > has not been calibrated for this function). When first started, (oil > cold) the pressure is 70 psi at any rpm above idle. I have installed a > 70 psi pressure regulator so I assumed this was correct but maybe not. > > > The other problem is the engine's failure to hot start. I was unable to > do it in spite of several attempts. It does not turn over very smartly > when hot and the compression is not as good when hot. I should take an > instrument reading on this in a future test because it is difficult to fe= el > the compression on a 3 rotor when pulling the prop through. The very > small battery and long cables (battery in tail cone for CG reasons) are > contributing factors and I intend to install a larger battery (Odessy PC = 680 > currently used). > > ------=_Part_12315_24500391.1192817048059 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Tracy,
So, I take it that the last schematic you posted with the solid state = relay is officially "approved for use"?  I went ahead and or= dered the p/n you gave me and have it sitting on the shelf waiting for= the go-ahead. =20
 
As for the CAS gap, I ended up at .020".  I found that openi= ng the gap further did not improve performance, in fact it made it worse.&n= bsp;
 
Looking forward to hearing it run next weekend.  Its hard to beli= eve that a year has passed already.
 
Thanks for the update,
Mark S.
 

 
On 10/19/07, Tracy Crook <tracy@rota= ryaviation.com> wrote:
After what seems like years of testing (actual engine Hobbs time = is only 6.8 hrs) I finally got a clean test run on the 20B.  It ran fl= awlessly from idle to almost WOT (28.5" Hg. MAP) in today's r= un.  Static RPM at this setting was 5950 which was higher than expecte= d with a 72 x 104  3 blade prop.  Blade stall could be a fac= tor but the prop blast was enough to rip the hearing protectors off my head= .=20
 
Bottom line is that the configuration I sent previously (in schematic = jpg) is the tested and approved setup for the EC2 20B controller.
 
Tracy
 
Here's today's test log entry for the details:
 

10-19-07  

The problem with engine surge and roughness at around = 3500 rpm turned out to be a failed diode on the rotor 2 secondary injector.= =20   I believe this must have failed due to the high transie= nt voltages that were present before adding the diode clamp and the solid s= tate relay.  The schottky diodes only have a maximum reve= rse voltage rating of 100 volts.   When replacing this part, I also installed diodes on th= e primary injectors.   After doing this, the engine ran p= erfectly in a previous test run until reaching the high rpm miss = at 5150 rpm, at which point it ran very rough.  

 

Today's test was to test the effect of reducing th= e Crank sensor to trigger wheel spacing to about .032" by removing the= .062 washer which I had previously used to increase the spacing  (~ .= 097").=20   (this engine installation has the Renesis Crank sensor setup) = The theory was that the EC2 front end circuit was being overloaded a= nd that a reduction of problem rpm threshold would confirm this when the sp= acing was reduced.=20   The test showed just the opposite effect.  <= /span>The high rpm miss was completely gone and I was able to run the engin= e at almost full throttle reaching an rpm over 5950 at about 28.5" Hg.=   WOT was not tested due to fears that the rail restraint might= fail and nose the aircraft over.  I am overjoyed with to= day's test results although I have not determined the exact phenomenon = that caused the problem.=20

 

FBW throttle control continues to work well.

 

The only negative indications were oil pressure at hig= h rpm which was about 59 PSI at 5900 with an oil temp of 190 F.  = ; The oil pressure does not fall very much at lower rpm (2500 =96 3500) where= it is about 55 psi.  Not sure if this is due to pressure= drops in the system   (the sensor is at the lowest press= ure point in the system) or instrument error.   (the EM2 has not been calibrated for this function).   When first started, (oil cold)  the pre= ssure is 70 psi at any rpm above idle.   I have inst= alled a 70 psi pressure regulator so I assumed this was correct but ma= ybe not.=20