X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "James R. Osborn" Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.7) with ESMTPS id 8183831 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 12:59:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.49; envelope-from=rxcited@gmail.com Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so167879084pac.3 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:59:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=dXA0jz0qrsxz0KuuhBO175TwSydR0gYbJ/I2kft+420=; b=XiGrf/D3LbEZYPSEIhmG65bzb4f73uW6aYe7SE12Lh5szLM+roQJmGLjKk6bcqcBfX Jehn8+WPYPEd+wu7Xca+mcYB+m4+iJMCeh0N6ljTECjTm/tuhhf3nrItOQhdVmLZDQMh mheRrRyNBHbrIpyr0akzDcCrovZ2PxFAd3urk6+y8YhzkeGqtaduZvdXcKT7BU20cxrl 2wlEqtFIfJGI7G4tcvohZKLgbrAoPfGHE1jDiTGyssn1CUHAEg3TDIRDrsG2NxISLlxe noSRmbjNjYDXv7sF1xtKFY8iz7iR0aiwvlLsS9YnioH4uTx4NO2zTrsSrrREAlO+P+2X kgRQ== X-Received: by 10.67.6.1 with SMTP id cq1mr20914598pad.78.1448215145782; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:59:05 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.15.14] (c-67-169-99-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.99.20]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h9sm6866712pfj.69.2015.11.22.09.59.04 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:59:05 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_457CC139-A942-45ED-9A61-DE353A85BA42" Message-Id: <35E387BF-F3A6-455A-BF4E-EE675A353BAF@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 20B with RD-1C Prop Options Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:59:04 -0800 References: To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) --Apple-Mail=_457CC139-A942-45ED-9A61-DE353A85BA42 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Cary, Readings were taken cold as the motor is not running to be able to warm = it, probably around 60 degrees F. It was well lubed - I squirted oil = into all the intake ports while cranking it over so the whole thing was = lubed before getting started. It was already lubed inside - previous = owners apparently did keep it lubed and turned over once in a while. I = did look up the Mazda specs and what I read was that passing was: 100 = psi minimum, 21 psi differential (per rotor I assume), at 250 rpm with = engine warm and leading plugs removed of non-tested rotors. I verified = my cranking speed was in fact around 250 (the graph implies 252, close = enough). But it wasn=E2=80=99t warm so maybe 87 isn=E2=80=99t awful. = And on that particular rotor the differential was 105 - 87 =3D 18. The motor history is not well understood. I picked it up from Bobby = Hughes on this forum who had acquired it from someone else who had = abandoned his project. Rumor was that Bruce Turrentine =E2=80=9Cwent = through=E2=80=9D the motor. We=E2=80=99re not sure exactly what that = means. By looking at the intake and exhaust ports, there is evidence of = grinding, but it looks like clean up. Without opening the motor and = taking a rubbing, it=E2=80=99s hard to know for sure what was done but = the ports themselves look very clean like they were not manually touched = with a grinder. I have never built a PP before, but it seems like =E2=80=9Cconstruction=E2= =80=9D would be the same for the motor itself. As for the intake, OK = tuning will be a factor. But it seems like it would be a simpler = manifold construction with just one big intake runner per rotor. This = reminds me of a question - in doing a little research on NA tuning, it = seems that commonly the intake runners are connected to a common plenum = which itself acts as part of the resonating system - a spring in effect = that helps reflect sound waves back into the intake runners. This would = imply a lot more experimentation than just playing with intake runner = length. Anybody have any comments on this? =E2=80=94 James > On Nov 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, cbeazley = wrote: >=20 > Hi James; >=20 > Was the compression taken cold & dry? >=20 > Per an old Factory Service Manual, the min compression limit is 85psi = / 21 max difference - taken warm @ 250rpm. > FSM Procedures: > http://foxed.ca/index.php?page=3Drx7manual = >=20 > Some of the compression losses are probably slightly sticking seals. = It should run fine. > Lube with some light oil, get it up to temp, run it hard under load = and retest. > As you mentioned, I would run it as is and monitor it. >=20 > If you take it apart a large street port is another alternative. = IIRC, the 20B porting was relatively restrictive. > PPort construction and tuning is a more involved option. =20 > There are pics of various ports and other bits around that may help = identify the components. You could post pics here as well. > Where did you buy the engine? >=20 > Cheers > Cary >=20 >>=20 >> From: James R. Osborn = >> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 20B with RD-1C Prop Options >> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:36:56 -0800 >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft = = >>=20 >> = Hi = Jeff, >>=20 >> Yes no time pressure at all. This will be a test stand development. >>=20 >> We don=E2=80=99t know the full providence of this motor. It appears = that it has been rebuilt and there is rumor that Bruce Turrentine was = involved with that. He has a reputation, but I don=E2=80=99t know if it = true he rebuilt it or wishful thinking. And I don=E2=80=99t know what = kind of porting was done - it looks more like just cleanup than porting = from the outside inspection, but I wouldn=E2=80=99t know for sure until = and if I take it apart. >>=20 >> I am not too afraid of rebuilding it as I have plenty of 13B = experience. But if the numbers seemed acceptable, I was thinking I = would try avoid it. Peak HP considerations aside (as Bobby mentioned), = I am inclined to go PP if I tear it apart - I always wanted one! This = would eliminate unknown factors about porting altogether too. >>=20 >> =E2=80=94 James >>=20 >> > On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Jeff Whaley = = wrote: >> >=20 >> > My gut feeling is if you are confident in the engine's history then = run the engine for several hours and retest the compression numbers. >> > Don't know where your engine came from, how long it has been = sitting, or what preservation treatment it received. In general terms it = is always best to overhaul an automotive engine prior to installation in = an aircraft. My guess is if you are building an RV10, you are still a = long way from actually flying? - If that is true you will have plenty of = time to perform an overhaul - it takes about 1-2 weeks real time. >> > Jeff >> >=20 >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: James R. Osborn [ = mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net = ] >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:05 PM >> > Subject: Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Options >> >=20 >> > So I finally got a dynamic pressure test done on this 20B. Here is = what I got: >> >=20 >> > Front: 105-125-105 >> > Center: 105-101-87 >> > Rear: 130-125-120 >> >=20 >> > This is in PSI and was done with all spark plugs out except the = rotor being tested. That one got one spark plug and the compression = fitting with pressure transducer attached in the other. I used the = RD-1C installed, but not engaged - I bolted up the flex plate without = the adapter and bolted up the RD-1C with a starter to be able to crank = it over. So the redrive was not slowing things down when I cranked it = over. Then I recorded the pressure wave on a laptop and looked at three = bumps in a row. I did this a few times for each rotor with a pause in = between and took the highest readings of any three successive peaks to = estimate the health of the three faces on each rotor. >> >=20 >> > My understanding is that higher numbers are better and the same = numbers across all faces in the motor is better. I am unclear what an = unacceptable low number might be. The actual values you get are = dependent on a number of factors including how fast you are cranking = (how well charged your battery is, how beefy the cables are, what kind = of porting, other losses like the PSRU if it were engaged, etc.) and if = the motor is broken in or not. I don=E2=80=99t know if this motor was = broken in, or if any seals were replaced. It looks clean inside and = there is evidence of porting, but I don=E2=80=99t know exactly what = (this is a side port configuration motor). >> >=20 >> > When I lost a side seal on my 13B REW in my RX-7, I got something = like 118-120-50 on the rotor that had the problem. So that was clearly = not good. When I rebuilt that motor that time, I had the plates ground = as they were beyond the wear limit and I used all new side and corner = seals and springs. After that rebuild, I got uniformly 120 to 130 on = all faces which I think is very good. >> >=20 >> > So, what do you guys think of my 20B numbers? Is that low face on = the Center rotor bad enough to warrant tearing the motor completely = apart? If I decide to do that, I might very well go PP. Though Bobby = at least thinks that is a bad idea due to noise and tuning difficulties = with the PP. Or I could just live with it with these numbers, go side = port, and break it in and start checking this periodically to see if = there is any improvement or further deterioration. >> >=20 >> > Thoughts or opinions? >> >=20 >> > =E2=80=94 James >> >=20 >> >> On Oct 29, 2015, at 1:22 PM, James R. Osborn = wrote: >> >>=20 >> >> Hi guys, >> >>=20 >> >> So I am going to be building an RV-10. I sourced Bobby=E2=80=99s = spare 20B / RD-1C combo and my plan is to work on the motor first, kind = of bass-ackward but that is what I am doing. My plan is to build a = motor/mount test stand and work everything out on the ground before I = ever put it in an airframe. I plan to set it up NA using the existing = side port configuration. I don=E2=80=99t know if it is ported - I am = going to attempt to determine this by inspection without cracking it = open and doing a dynamic compression test to evaluate the health of the = motor. If it is necessary to entirely rebuild the motor, I would = probably go PP. So I am thinking the target HP as it is would be in the = 275 HP range and probably 325 HP if it ends up being a PP. How do these = numbers sound to you all? >> >>=20 >> >> I will be looking for a way to dyno it, hopefully borrow one to = get some data. But I was also thinking about just getting an = appropriate fixed pitch prop and working through the bugs based on = static run ups. I like the idea of a three blade prop. I like the idea = of optimizing for cruise at 75%, say 5800 rpm which would put full = throttle at 7733 rpm on the 20B. At 5800 rpm, the prop would be = spinning 2035 rpm and at full throttle 2713 rpm (using the 2.85 ratio = RD-1C PSRU). Do all these numbers sound about right? >> >>=20 >> >> If so, then how do I choose a prop that will result in 2713 rpm = static run up at full throttle, but be tuned for efficiency at 2035 rpm = cruise? I am assuming at these reasonable RPMs that it will be a larger = swing and the three blade makes sense - what do you think? Is there a = convenient way to find props out there that will work at the target full = throttle HP of 275 or 325? Also if you guys have any good resources to = learn about how to figure these things out (books, web pages, online = calculators, etc.) that would be great! >> >>=20 >> >> Another option might be to go with something like the IVOPROP = Magnum, either ground adjustable or electric inflight adjustable. What = do you guys think of these? Would the adjustability really help me = adapt to however my power plant turns out? Would the extra complexity = be worth it? For the ground adjustable one, I am thinking the process = would be: 1. select the =E2=80=9Ccorrect=E2=80=9D swing (how?) and go = for three blades, 2) use ground adjustability and work up to THE pitch = while I tune the motor until I achieve full throttle static run up = around 7700 RPM. Will this result in a reasonably efficient setting for = 75% cruise? Am I thinking about this clearly? All opinions are = welcome. >> >>=20 >> >> There=E2=80=99s a lot for you to chew on! >> >>=20 >> >> =E2=80=94 James >> >>=20 >> >=20 >> > This message, and the documents attached hereto, is intended only = for the addressee and may contain privileged or confidential = information. Any unauthorized disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you = have received this message in error, please notify us immediately so = that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the = original message. Thank you. >> >=20 >> > -- >> > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.la= ncaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html = --Apple-Mail=_457CC139-A942-45ED-9A61-DE353A85BA42 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi Cary,

Readings were taken cold as the motor is not running to be = able to warm it, probably around 60 degrees F.  It was well lubed - = I squirted oil into all the intake ports while cranking it over so the = whole thing was lubed before getting started.  It was already lubed = inside - previous owners apparently did keep it lubed and turned over = once in a while.  I did look up the Mazda specs and what I read was = that passing was:  100 psi minimum, 21 psi differential (per rotor = I assume), at 250 rpm with engine warm and leading plugs removed of = non-tested rotors.  I verified my cranking speed was in fact around = 250 (the graph implies 252, close enough).  But it wasn=E2=80=99t = warm so maybe 87 isn=E2=80=99t awful.  And on that particular rotor = the differential was 105 - 87 =3D 18.

The motor history is not well = understood.  I picked it up from Bobby Hughes on this forum who had = acquired it from someone else who had abandoned his project.  Rumor = was that Bruce Turrentine =E2=80=9Cwent through=E2=80=9D the motor. =  We=E2=80=99re not sure exactly what that means.  By looking = at the intake and exhaust ports, there is evidence of grinding, but it = looks like clean up.  Without opening the motor and taking a = rubbing, it=E2=80=99s hard to know for sure what was done but the ports = themselves look very clean like they were not manually touched with a = grinder.

I = have never built a PP before, but it seems like =E2=80=9Cconstruction=E2=80= =9D would be the same for the motor itself.  As for the intake, OK = tuning will be a factor.  But it seems like it would be a simpler = manifold construction with just one big intake runner per rotor. =  This reminds me of a question - in doing a little research on NA = tuning, it seems that commonly the intake runners are connected to a = common plenum which itself acts as part of the resonating system - a = spring in effect that helps reflect sound waves back into the intake = runners.  This would imply a lot more experimentation than just = playing with intake runner length.  Anybody have any comments on = this?

=E2=80=94 = James

On Nov 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, cbeazley <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

=20 =20
Hi James;

Was the compression taken cold & dry?

Per an old Factory Service Manual, the min compression limit is 85psi / 21 max difference - taken warm @ 250rpm.
FSM Procedures:
  http://foxed.ca/index.= php?page=3Drx7manual

Some of the compression losses are probably slightly sticking seals.  It should run fine.
Lube with some light oil, get it up to temp, run it hard under load and retest.
As you mentioned, I would run it as is and monitor it.

If you take it apart a large street port is another = alternative.  IIRC, the 20B porting was relatively restrictive.
PPort construction and tuning is a more involved option. 
There are pics of various ports and other bits around that may help identify the components.  You could post pics here as well.
Where did you buy the engine?

Cheers
Cary

From: James R. Osborn <flyrotary@lancaironline.ne= t>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 20B with RD-1C Prop Options
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 = 09:36:56 -0800
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.ne= t>
<TextHeaders.gif>

<TextLetter.gif>
Hi Jeff,

Yes no time pressure at all.  This will be a test stand development.

We don=E2=80=99t know the full providence of this motor. =  It appears that it has been rebuilt and there is rumor that Bruce Turrentine was involved with that.  He has a reputation, = but I don=E2=80=99t know if it true he rebuilt it or wishful thinking. =  And I don=E2=80=99t know what kind of porting was done - it looks more = like just cleanup than porting from the outside inspection, but I wouldn=E2=80=99t know for sure until and if I take it apart.

I am not too afraid of rebuilding it as I have plenty of 13B experience.  But if the numbers seemed acceptable, I was thinking I would try avoid it.  Peak HP considerations = aside (as Bobby mentioned), I am inclined to go PP if I tear it apart - I always wanted one!  This would eliminate unknown factors = about porting altogether too.

=E2=80=94 James

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Jeff Whaley <flyrotary@lancaironline.ne= t> wrote:
>
> My gut feeling is if you are confident in the engine's history then run the engine for several hours and retest the compression numbers.
> Don't know where your engine came from, how long it has been sitting, or what preservation treatment it received. In general terms it is always best to overhaul an automotive engine prior to installation in an aircraft. My guess is if you are building an RV10, you are still a long way from actually flying? - If that is true you will have plenty of time to perform an overhaul - it takes about 1-2 weeks real time.
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James R. Osborn [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline= .net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 9:05 PM
> Subject: Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Options
>
> So I finally got a dynamic pressure test done on this 20B.  Here is what I got:
>
> Front: 105-125-105
> Center: 105-101-87
> Rear: 130-125-120
>
> This is in PSI and was done with all spark plugs out except the rotor being tested.  That one got one spark plug and = the compression fitting with pressure transducer attached in the other.  I used the RD-1C installed, but not engaged - I = bolted up the flex plate without the adapter and bolted up the RD-1C with a starter to be able to crank it over.  So the redrive = was not slowing things down when I cranked it over.  Then I = recorded the pressure wave on a laptop and looked at three bumps in a row.  I did this a few times for each rotor with a pause in between and took the highest readings of any three successive peaks to estimate the health of the three faces on each = rotor.
>
> My understanding is that higher numbers are better and the same numbers across all faces in the motor is better.  I am unclear what an unacceptable low number might be.  The = actual values you get are dependent on a number of factors including how fast you are cranking (how well charged your battery is, how beefy the cables are, what kind of porting, other losses like the PSRU if it were engaged, etc.) and if the motor is broken in or not.  I don=E2=80=99t know if this motor was broken in, = or if any seals were replaced.  It looks clean inside and there is evidence of porting, but I don=E2=80=99t know exactly what (this = is a side port configuration motor).
>
> When I lost a side seal on my 13B REW in my RX-7, I got something like 118-120-50 on the rotor that had the problem. =  So that was clearly not good.  When I rebuilt that motor that = time, I had the plates ground as they were beyond the wear limit and I used all new side and corner seals and springs.  After that rebuild, I got uniformly 120 to 130 on all faces which I think is very good.
>
> So, what do you guys think of my 20B numbers?  Is that = low face on the Center rotor bad enough to warrant tearing the motor completely apart?  If I decide to do that, I might very = well go PP.  Though Bobby at least thinks that is a bad idea due to noise and tuning difficulties with the PP.  Or I could just = live with it with these numbers, go side port, and break it in and start checking this periodically to see if there is any improvement or further deterioration.
>
> Thoughts or opinions?
>
> =E2=80=94 James
>
>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 1:22 PM, James R. Osborn <rxcited@gmail.com> = wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> So I am going to be building an RV-10.  I sourced Bobby=E2=80=99s spare 20B / RD-1C combo and my plan is to work = on the motor first, kind of bass-ackward but that is what I am doing.  My plan is to build a motor/mount test stand and work everything out on the ground before I ever put it in an airframe.  I plan to set it up NA using the existing side = port configuration.  I don=E2=80=99t know if it is ported - I am = going to attempt to determine this by inspection without cracking it open and doing a dynamic compression test to evaluate the health of the motor.  If it is necessary to entirely rebuild the = motor, I would probably go PP.  So I am thinking the target HP as it = is would be in the 275 HP range and probably 325 HP if it ends up being a PP.  How do these numbers sound to you all?
>>
>> I will be looking for a way to dyno it, hopefully borrow one to get some data.  But I was also thinking about = just getting an appropriate fixed pitch prop and working through the bugs based on static run ups.  I like the idea of a three = blade prop.  I like the idea of optimizing for cruise at 75%, say = 5800 rpm which would put full throttle at 7733 rpm on the 20B. =  At 5800 rpm, the prop would be spinning 2035 rpm and at full throttle 2713 rpm (using the 2.85 ratio RD-1C PSRU).  Do = all these numbers sound about right?
>>
>> If so, then how do I choose a prop that will result in 2713 rpm static run up at full throttle, but be tuned for efficiency at 2035 rpm cruise?  I am assuming at these reasonable RPMs that it will be a larger swing and the three blade makes sense - what do you think?  Is there a = convenient way to find props out there that will work at the target full throttle HP of 275 or 325?  Also if you guys have any good resources to learn about how to figure these things out (books, web pages, online calculators, etc.) that would be great!
>>
>> Another option might be to go with something like the IVOPROP Magnum, either ground adjustable or electric inflight adjustable.  What do you guys think of these?  Would = the adjustability really help me adapt to however my power plant turns out?  Would the extra complexity be worth it? =  For the ground adjustable one, I am thinking the process would be: =  1. select the =E2=80=9Ccorrect=E2=80=9D swing (how?) and go for = three blades, 2) use ground adjustability and work up to THE pitch while I tune the motor until I achieve full throttle static run up around 7700 RPM.  Will this result in a reasonably efficient = setting for 75% cruise?  Am I thinking about this clearly? =  All opinions are welcome.
>>
>> There=E2=80=99s a lot for you to chew on!
>>
>> =E2=80=94 James
>>
>
> This message, and the documents attached hereto, is intended only for the addressee and may contain privileged or confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the original message. Thank you.
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http:/= /mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
=

= --Apple-Mail=_457CC139-A942-45ED-9A61-DE353A85BA42--