X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost02.isp.att.net ([207.115.11.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTP id 5721956 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:02:19 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.11.52; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-98-85-143-114.mco.bellsouth.net[98.85.143.114]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc02) with SMTP id <20120821150142H0200optjae>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:01:42 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [98.85.143.114] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo question. Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:01:45 -0400 Message-ID: <21C8D1CFBD694C99A08D4A455FD012E2@Desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ac1/q1QOx9/O+OJSQS+S8rmzZNwloAAAfGzA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 Chris, Are you sure that the apex seal broke due to detonation? Did your turbo come apart and get into the engine? It sure seems that you have a restriction in the turbo system. Either the intercooler is clogged, the turbo is stuck, or both...of course it could be something else entirely. :>) Bill B -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of David Leonard Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:43 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo question. Chris, I agree with Steve. This does not make sense on a couple of levels. Something is not right for sure, very likely two things. Hard to fix without being there. However, the stuck (non spinning) turbo makes the most sense as a single issue. Was it working normally before the detonation issue? -- David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net http://RotaryRoster.net On 8/20/12, Steven W. Boese wrote: > Chris, > > The attached image shows a comparison of RPM vs MAP for a 13B on an engine > test stand for a turbo installation, a supercharger installation, and a > normally aspirated setup along with the data you reported. The test stand > prop was the same for each installation and the same intercooler was used > with the turbo and the supercharger. The altitude here limits the NA MAP to > 23" Hg. No claim is made that the turbo or supercharger installations were > completely optimized, however the trends should be valid. The NA intake was > the dynamic chamber intake as found in a 1986 RX7 car. The NA installation > had the turbo and supercharger completely removed: that is, the turbo was > not connected to either the intake or exhaust system, and the supercharger > was not being belt driven and was not connected to the intake system. > > From the data you reported, you got similar max static RPM with the turbo > with about 6" less MAP than normally aspirated (similar situation at 5000 > RPM). That is difficult to accept since it takes energy to drive the turbo > in the form of increased exhaust gas backpressure which would raise the MAP > requirement rather than decrease it. > > If your data for the turbo and normally aspirated cases were reversed, then > the data makes sense. If the normally aspirated MAP was limited to 24.5", > the max MAP of 29.8 would correspond quite well with boost being limited to > 3 psi by the wastegate spring. The turbo system would appear to be working > correctly if this unlikely scenario were to be the case, but unfortunately, > the indication of a free lunch would be gone. > > Steve Boese > RV6A, 1986 13B NA, RD1A, EC2 > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of > Chris Barber [cbarber@texasattorney.net] > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:17 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Turbo question. > > As I have mentioned I have had what I think are incongruent readings > regarding my manifold pressure (mp)and engine rpm. It seems I am getting > quite low mp as I add power to higher rpm. > > I am not well versed in this area but my thought is that as I add power, > even with slight boost (currently using a 3 lb spring in my wastegate) > eventually my mp should raise a bit more. > > Today I did some static test. I recorded engine RPM with the turbo hooked > up and recorded the mp at 1000 rpm increments. Then I removed the turbo > plumbing from my intake and recorded the same info My results currently > confuse me. > > With the turbo hooked up I am getting > > RPM. MP inches > 2000 - 14.0 > 3000 - 15.5 > 4000 - 19.3 > 5000 - 21.6 > 5700 - 24.5 (topped out) > > With the turbo removed. > > 2000 - 15.8 > 3000 - 15.3 > 4000 - 19.7 > 5000 - 24.8 > 5833 - 29.8 > > Is this indicative of restriction in my plumbing? Perhaps in the inter > cooler? A dirty air filter? A bad pop off valve or a leak not allowing the > air pressure getting to the intake. Or???? > > I am uncertain what other permitters I need to check and provide. I am just > starting my diagnosis in my Phase One testing. I only have 1.6 hours in the > air so far. I value ya'll's direction and input. > > Heck, perhaps this is working properly but it just doesn't seem > right/comfortable. > > Thanks folks. > > Chris Barber > Houston > Velocity SE > Rotary 13b turbo (?) :-) > > > > Sent from my iPhone 4 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html