Message

Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.71] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2777570 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:33:36 -0500 Received: from rad ([68.212.0.112]) by imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031129233331.HRKZ1942.imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:33:31 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Brief flight report Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:33:31 -0600 Message-ID: <000001c3b6d1$33640980$6001a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3B69E.E8C99980" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3B69E.E8C99980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Take off temps never got above 175 for coolant and 165 for oil. =20 =20 We stayed at pattern altitude and reduced power to about 3600 or 80 = kts. On landing the temps came down to about 160 and showed the same max = temps on repeated takeoffs. =20 =20 Congrats on the improvement. Try to make an extended climb when you get = a chance, to see how the temps hold up, particularly the oil. I made the mistake of doing a couple of tests to only 2000 ft, and everything = seemed great. Unfortunately, my oil temp takes a while to stabilize, and it = just wasn't getting to full temp in the minute that it takes to get to 2000 = ft. The water seems to react more quickly, and stabilizes in just a minute = or so. =20 =20 The Ivo pitch was reduced by ~6" to 60" in an effort to get more RPM/ = power developed without reducing pitch too much and losing thrust. = Acceleration was better and we lifted of in less than 1000ft and climbed out at 1200 = fpm. RPM never got above 4900 at WOT, but this is an improvement of ~400 rpm = from the previous setting. Should I reduce pitch more? =20 I assume that you're using the ground adjustable IVO, not the in-flight adjustable. If that's the case, you'll have to compromise like the rest = of us. Within reason, less pitch gives more RPM, better climb, but = over-revs when attempting high speed runs. More pitch is just the opposite. =20 =20 At some point, you need to decide what you want your limits to be. = What's the max RPM you are willing to run? What cruise RPM do you want to fly = at? What maximum power are you willing to run continuously? Do you want to optimize the prop for cruise, or climb? Once you figure all this out, = you can set the pitch for the best compromise. In the mean time, I'd say = you certainly could reduce the pitch a bit more, and go for something closer = to 5500 RPM for climb. This will be another cooling system test though, = since you'll be making more power. =20 Cheers, Rusty =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3B69E.E8C99980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Take off = temps never=20 got above 175 for coolant and 165 for oil.

We stayed=20 at pattern altitude and reduced power to about 3600 or 80 kts. = On=20 landing the temps came down to about 160 and showed the same max temps = on=20 repeated takeoffs.

Congrats on = the=20 improvement. Try to make an extended climb when you get a = chance, to=20 see how the temps hold up, particularly the oil. I made the = mistake of=20 doing a couple of tests to only 2000 ft, and everything seemed = great. =20 Unfortunately, my oil temp takes a while to stabilize, and it just = wasn't=20 getting to full temp in the minute that it takes to get to 2000 = ft. =20 The water seems to react more quickly, and stabilizes in just = a minute=20 or so.

The Ivo pitch = was=20 reduced by ~6” to 60” in an effort to get more RPM/ power = developed without=20 reducing pitch too much and losing thrust. Acceleration was better = and we=20 lifted of in less than 1000ft and climbed out at 1200 fpm. RPM = never got=20 above 4900 at WOT, but this is an improvement of ~400 rpm from the = previous=20 setting. Should I reduce pitch more?

I assume = that you're=20 using the ground adjustable IVO, not the in-flight = adjustable. If=20 that's the case, you'll have to compromise like the rest of us. =20 Within reason, = less pitch=20 gives more RPM, better climb, but over-revs when attempting high = speed=20 runs. More pitch is just the=20 opposite.

At some = point, you need=20 to decide what you want your limits to be. What's the max RPM = you are=20 willing to run? What cruise RPM do you want to fly at? = What=20 maximum power are you willing to run continuously? Do = you want=20 to optimize the prop for cruise, or climb? Once you figure all = this out,=20 you can set the pitch for the best compromise. In the mean time, = I'd say=20 you certainly could reduce the pitch a bit more, and go for something = closer to=20 5500 RPM for climb. This will be another cooling system = test=20 though, since you'll be making more = power.

Cheers,

Rusty =20

=20

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3B69E.E8C99980--