X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2o) with ESMTP id 4884629 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:22:13 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=Bktrub@aol.com Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p1S3LZMR006303 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:35 -0500 Received: from Bktrub@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.edc.1109dbbb (37133) for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-ma01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.140]) by cia-ma02.mx.aol.com (v129.9) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA027-5c444d6b14b9f; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:30 -0500 Received: from webmail-d076 (webmail-d076.sim.aol.com [205.188.181.102]) by smtprly-ma01.mx.aol.com (v129.9) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMA012-5c444d6b14b9f; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:29 -0500 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2/ Tracy Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:29 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 74.110.91.118 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: bktrub@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CDA50DB96DD58B_198C_6FFE5_webmail-d076.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33298-STANDARD Received: from 74.110.91.118 by webmail-d076.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.102) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:29 -0500 Message-Id: <8CDA50DB966B16B-198C-30863@webmail-d076.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Bktrub@aol.com ----------MB_8CDA50DB96DD58B_198C_6FFE5_webmail-d076.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Do you happen to know at what RPM staging occurs on the ground and in flig= ht? Do you also know the fuel flow rates under those two conditions? =20 No to either of those questions. I'll be on the lookout on the next few fl= ights to answer those questions.=20 Brian Trubee -----Original Message----- From: Steven W. Boese To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 5:18 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2/ Tracy Brian, =20 If mode 4 is at the default setting and the engine ran smoothly on just th= e secondary injectors when using the backup procedure, it seems unlikely= that there is a significant difference in flow rate between those seconda= ry injectors. =20 It might be useful to set modes 1, 4, and 6 back to factory defaults and= set mode 3 at a MAP just below the staging threshold. The reason for thi= s suggestion is because when MAP becomes higher than the staging threshold= , there is the effect of the mixture going lean due to injector lag. Ther= e is also the effect of the mixture going rich due to bringing on the larg= er flow rate secondary injectors. It just so happens that with 28 lb prim= aries and 40 lb secondaries, these two effects very nearly cancel each oth= er out if the engine is running in the neighborhood of 4000 RPM and using= about 6 gal/hr. With a default table and higher fuel flow rates than 6= gal/hr, the injector lag effect will gradually tend to make the mixture= richer. The excess fuel flow rate will be about 10% by the time a flow= rate of around 14 gal/hr is reached. This richening tendency can then be= compensated for using mode 1 or 9. No guarantees, but it may be worth a= try. =20 =20 Do you happen to know at what RPM staging occurs on the ground and in flig= ht? Do you also know the fuel flow rates under those two conditions? =20 =20 Steve Boese =20 =20 =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Be= half Of bktrub@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:20 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2/ Tracy =20 No, I don't have a secondary injector failure as far as I know. Several po= ints- I had the injectors cleaned and flow tested. Primaries are 28 #, sec= ondaries 40#- the engine is a 13bREW- 93 twin turbo, but normally aspirated. I checked to see if al= l the injectors were firing by disconnecting all the other leads and runni= ng on mode 1, engine off and press program switch. They all are firing. Al= so ran the injector backup proceedure.=20 =20 The engine runs well on the ground all through the power band, but in the= air , after staging it is a bit rough and misses. My theory- the secondar= ies are not firing equally and need to be tuned in mode 4. The engine stag= es normally at MAP address 84, and transistions through that point pretty= smoothly, and runs very smooth below that point. That's why I think I nee= d a bit of rotor matching in mode 4 above the staging point using the EGTs= . =20 I feel that I am making definate progress. =20 Brian Trubee =3D=20 ----------MB_8CDA50DB96DD58B_198C_6FFE5_webmail-d076.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Do you happen to know at what RPM staging occurs on the gro= und and in flight?   Do you also know the fuel flow rates under= those two conditions? 
 
No to either of those questions. I'll be on the lookout on= the next few flights to answer those questions.
 
Brian Trubee




-----Original Message-----
From: Steven W. Boese <SBoese@uwyo.edu>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 5:18 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2/ Tracy