|
I spoke with Powersport after the crash. Jim had
installed a key switch that was also his power master switch. I believe the key
switch failed.
Bobby
Thanks for the
additional info on Jim’s crash, Bill. I was not aware that he had broken his
arm.
Hummm, do you
recall exactly what failed in his system? – I’m interested as I fly with a
single battery. I initially flew with 2 but after 8 years of never using
the second one but to help crank on a cold morning I took it out. I am
waiting on one of those super duper very tiny batteries that Bill Dube is
developing – but, have to wait until the price comes down a bit
{:>).
From:
Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of wrjjrs@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 11:37
AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel economy -
Ed,
Jim Clark's crash in one of the
PowerSport powered RV-8s was not caused by an engine failure. His problem
was a single battery electrical system which failed. Jim did break his arm in
the crash but wasn't hurt otherwise. The plane was supposed to be rebuildable. I
was very saddened by the Vans test BTW because they didn't let the rotarys fly
an optimum flight plan but made them do exactly what the Lycs did. The post
Everett Hatch Powersport EMS was also far from optimum. The Dave Lenard N4AVY
flight in Dan Checcoways 100 mile race shows that the rotary is very comparable
in cost and fuel consumption.
Bill Jepson
-----Original
Message-----
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To:
Rotary motors in aircraft
<flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 5:47 am
Subject:
[FlyRotary] Re: Fuel economy -
Yes, Mike, I read
that article about the comparison as well. This was clearly a case of two
guys who had more money than knowledge of the rotary. One eventually had
an engine failure which damaged fortunately only the aircraft – never did hear
the cause. So I personally did not get any indication reading the results
that either of the pilots really understood how to get the best out of their
rotary. But, yes, the powersport engine certainly looked nice – but at
$30K it should {:>).
=0 A
One the other hand, I
personally saw Tracy Crook win the Sun & Fun 100 air race on two occasions
before they decided to stop the air races because of the embarrassment of his
junk yard engine (yes, this was before his Renesis installation) beating
lycomings that in some cases had $10,000 of additional prep.
Here Tracy was in a rather
dirty airframe (compared to some of the racers), with automotive muffler hanging
in the slip stream and a fixed pitch wooden prop winning the air races.
Didn’t hear anything about it in any of the aviation publications did you?
– too embarrassing to all those Lycoming owners. So they decided to
cancel the air races to preclude further embarrassment – Yeah! I know they
claimed it was due to insurance consideration, Yeah! Right!
{:>)
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary
Powered
From:
Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
On Behalf Of Mike
Wills
Sent: Wednesday, March
04, 2009 10:50 PM
To: Rotary m
otors in aircraft
Subject:
[FlyRotary] Re: Fuel economy -
There was an article in the May 2006
issue of Sport Aviation. Two RV-8s powered by Powersport Rotaries compared to
two of Van's factory demo RV-8s. Time to climb and speeds were pretty
comparable. The rotary powered airplanes were a little heavier. Fuel consumption
for a 160 mile out and return flight the rotaries burned 12.9 and 11.5 gallons
while the Lyc powered RVs burned 8.9 and 9.5 gallons. Cruise portion of the
flight was rotaries 7.85 and 7.1, Lycs 5.05 and
5.45.
My guess is that if the pilots
could have aggressively leaned the numbers would be closer but the
rotaries were equipped with Powersport's
FADEC. No idea what it does with
mixture.
Anyway its articles like this
that perpetuate the ideas about rotaries being gas hogs. Until we generate some
numbers to contradict, this is going to be the perception. If you guys generate
the numbers I'll volunteer to write the magazine
article!
I should also mention that the
Powersport RVs looked WAYYYY cooler than the Lyc powered
RVs!
----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:27 AM
Subject:
[FlyRotary] Fuel economy -
Most are just plain scared to run their engines lean
of peak where they are able to get close to the
"advertised" bsfc.
That seems to be
the rule. I chatted yesterday with a hangar neighbor with his beautiful
Lancair Legacy with Continental 550. Does he run lean of peak? “Eh-h,
well, I tried it, but it sounded different, and I hear the valves don’t last
as long; so I run it rich of peak. It’s a few more dollars, but cheap
insurance”
Alcohol and possible vapor lock are the only
issues I know of, and with a properly designed EFI fuel system, vapor
lock isn't an issue. As long as they don't start blending alcohol
in the fuel in my neck of the woods, I'll keep burning mogas and
pocketing the difference.
I did the ethanol
test on my auto fuel yesterday. Within the accuracy of the test,=2 0the fuel
had between 4 and 6% ethanol – consistent with what Mike said regarding CA
fuels. So I got out my light and little my mirror and stiff wire with a
sharp end; and inspected my fiberglass/EZpoxy fuel tanks. No sign of any
softening of the surfaces; no sign of anything happening. Nothing in the fuel
filter. So far, so good.
So I’ll keep
runnin’ with auto fuel – certainly when near my home base. Saves close
to $15 for every hour of flying – including the 6 – 8 cents/ga for the 2-cycle
oil (SuperTech 2-stroke oil, $10.97/ga at Walmart, mix ¾ oz per
ga.).
You stated, "But really the biggest motivation was to
do something a little different." As for that statement... I couldn't
agree more, but how do you quantify something like that?
I like to put
it differently: "But really the biggest motivation was to do
something a little better."
__________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
|