X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost04.isp.att.net ([207.115.11.54] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3529603 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:09:01 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.11.54; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from [192.168.10.7] (adsl-147-254-14.jan.bellsouth.net[72.147.254.14]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc04) with ESMTP id <20090306020824H0400pv2d3e>; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:08:25 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [72.147.254.14] Message-ID: <49B08598.4080000@bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:08:24 -0600 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel economy - References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Was there no chance that 'no evidence of fuel in the tanks' could have been a factor? Charlie Ed Anderson wrote: > > That is what the NTSB report also concluded, Bobby, failure of the > ignition switch. > > All of my crucial switches (EC2, ignition, fuel pump) are wired to a > 20 amp circuit breaker I call my “Live Man Switch”. The circuit > breaker is normally OPEN so all switches work normally. Should the > engine stop running due to a mechanical failure of a switch, pushing > in the CB will route power to all crucial circuits. I spent $$ on > sealed, heavy duty industrial toggle switches back in the early 90s – > they cost over $30.00 each back then. But realizing that anything > mechanical (or electrical) can fail, I decided to wire up my “Live Man > Switch”. > > I used it once during a take off I aborted after getting airborne due > to the engine surging – turned out that it was nothing electrical, so > it did not remedy the problem, but I was pleased I had remembered it > and had punched it shut. > > This was when I was using a HALTECH EFI – the problem was you had to > tune it with a lap top and you couldn’t tune the Fuel map on the > ground beyond your static rpm. Well, I did the fuel map up to my > static of 5200 (when I was using the 2.17:1 gear box) and the > extrapolated the fuel map pass that point (obviously inappropriately). > As soon as I lifted off the ground, the engine started a wild surge > between approx 5500 and 3000 rpm. I punched my life man switch (which > did nothing) and then decided to put it back down on the 2200 ft strip > doing approx 75 mph. Touched down 300 ft from the end and pushed the > brake peddles through the floor. Thought I had made the wrong decision > (and probably did) as the end of the runway approached like and > express train. But ended up about 12 ft off the end of the runway > trying to get my heart restarted – no damaged to anything other than > my nerves, lifespan and seat cushion. > > In hindsight, with a bit more experience I would have recognized the > “lean surge” – first time I had encountered it in the rotary and then > I would have realized the solution would have been to reach over and > turned the manual mixture control knob to full rich. But with only > about 1-2 seconds to make a decision – I went with my pre-made > decision that I would rather go off the far end of the runway at 20-30 > mph than get airborne and then have to set it down in a less desirable > situation. A few days later the HALTECH failed with the injectors full > open and I had gasoline running out the tail pipes before I could get > the pumps shut off. Ordered Tracy’s EC2 and have flown with confidence > ever since. > > But, back to the design issues – I try not to have any unnecessary > single points of failure, but I think we all realize there is risk in > our endeavor and should plan accordingly. > > Ed > > Ed Anderson > > Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered > > Matthews, NC > > eanderson@carolina.rr.com > > http://www.andersonee.com > > http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html > > http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW > > > http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Bobby J. Hughes > *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:44 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel economy - > > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Ed Anderson > *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:33 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel economy - > > 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 {:>). > > Ed Anderson > > Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered > > Matthews, NC > > eanderson@carolina.rr.com > > http://www.andersonee.com > > http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html > > http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW > > > http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *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 > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > 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! {:>) > > Ed > > Ed Anderson > > Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered > > Matthews, NC > > eanderson@carolina.rr.com > > http://www.andersonee.com > > http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html > > http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW > > > http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *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! > > Mike Wills > > RV-4 N144MW > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Al Gietzen > > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:27 AM > > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Fuel economy - > > Mark wrote: > > 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." > > Al G >