Honda 1.8L running on test stand video

[rv6ejguy]

If I recall correctly, the system requires passing through it at every taxi. It's now done with the least possible manifold pressure, rather than shoving the throttle to pass through it quickly?



I posted four Holzer examples earlier, since deleted. As you know, your system can be modeled when you find reason to dismantle the Marcotte for accurate measurements. No point in GIGO.

As before, the urethane bushings are a poor choice for two reasons. The model would show you one of them. And there is still the mystery of the rod bearing failures.

Yes, idle speed above the resonant range, a desirable design goal. No flywheel makes it more impressive. It didn't happen using the million monkeys approach.


Correct, I pass through the resonant range as I start the taxi, bringing the throttle up quickly and commence taxi above 1300 rpm (590 prop rpm).

I hope I don't find reason to dismantle my drive any time soon, but I will at the first sign of spline wear, bearing scratchiness, increased backlash, signs of metal in the oil or increased GB oil temps. I do look at the coupler bushings more often now and I'll pull the vacuum pump at 100 hours since overhaul to see what that coupler looks like.

Yes, still no firm reason for the rod bearing condition. Could be TV related or not.

The urethane engine mount bushings, probably not the best choice but others have experimented with them here and other places. They work. This engine is much smother than a Lycoming. I inspect the mount ever time the cowling is off which is pretty often hour-wise.

Yes, my FWF package is a lot more experimental than most. I realized that from the start when I was designing and building it. I've been happy with the performance and education I received in doing it despite some "moments", frustration, head scratching and do-overs on some parts.

[DanH]

I do look at the coupler bushings more often now and I'll pull the vacuum pump at 100 hours since overhaul to see what that coupler looks like.

The coupler bushings between the flywheel and the gearbox are the ones I had in mind. I suspect the model will suggest a much lower spring rate, and anyway, urethane has too much hysteresis.

yes, still no firm reason for the rod bearing condition. Could be TV related or not.

Here's the theory. The prop is the major inertia, the anchor against which the rest of the system oscillates. The Marcotte ring gear bell is massive, likely be both very stiff and high inertia (http://www.glasairproject.com/GlasairI/images/guymgear.jpg). So, the F1 node, typically assumed to be close to the prop (i.e. in a PSRU's prop shaft) could be pushed toward the flywheel. If true, the oscillating inertia, being just the crank, would be reduced, thus its frequency would be higher. Imagine what significant oscillation would do to the oil wedge in the rod bearings.

If correct, your subsequent higher inertia flywheel assembly should help. Devising an experiment to prove or disprove would be, ummm, noble ;)

[rv6ejguy]

The coupler bushings between the flywheel and the gearbox are the ones I had in mind. I suspect the model will suggest a much lower spring rate, and anyway, urethane has too much hysteresis.



Here's the theory. The prop is the major inertia, the anchor against which the rest of the system oscillates. The Marcotte ring gear bell is massive, likely be both very stiff and high inertia (http://www.glasairproject.com/GlasairI/images/guymgear.jpg). So, the F1 node, typically assumed to be close to the prop (i.e. in a PSRU's prop shaft) could be pushed toward the flywheel. If true, the oscillating inertia, being just the crank, would be reduced, thus its frequency would be higher. Imagine what significant oscillation would do to the oil wedge in the rod bearings.

If correct, your subsequent higher inertia flywheel assembly should help. Devising an experiment to prove or disprove would be, ummm, noble ;)

The present redrive coupler bushings are really low stiffness, I measured them at 25 lb/ft./ degree (collectively). Given the strange marks on the bushing bores and the condition of the bushings, I wouldn't attempt anything with lower stiffness nor would I use urethane there. Would be interesting to install bushings with triple the stiffness and observe the results. I just can't find any. It works well enough for my purposes at the moment.

At some point, maybe the engine will be apart again and I can take a boo at the bearings. Certainly curious but couldn't conclude with certainty whether the flywheel mass changed that aspect.

While some things may universally apply to auto conversions and TV, I think we should leave this thread to discuss Charlie's results rather than mine at this point. There is another long thread on my experiences here already. Given my seriously limited time to even fly these days, I won't be doing any FWF mods to my plane for a while.

[DanH]

The present redrive coupler bushings are really low stiffness, I measured them at 25 lb/ft./ degree (collectively).

That's interesting. Very soft indeed, which makes the question "For how many degrees?" It's a pin in a socket, soft only until the pin reaches the edge of the bore. At 25 ft-lbs/deg (1.942 kNm/rad), the coupler would have to have around 10 degrees of displacement just to handle nominal torque, not cyclical peak, nor resonant. Don't think you have it available, my friend. The pins are hard against the wall, which is why it hammers.

Seriously, consider a basic analytical model to establish a desired coupler stiffness, then choose something like a Centaflex A. All the values are known, so it lends itself to design rather than "experimenting". I'm just sayin'.

http://www.centa.info/data/products/32/int/cf-a--en-17-15lowres.pdf

... I think we should leave this thread to discuss Charlie's results rather than mine at this point.

You got it.

[charosenz]

Fellas, just for the record I have been off the grid for a few days out of state. The TV discussion is interesting and important, and I am sure many will enjoy reading about it.

My main goal at this point is to get the engine mounted on the airframe and up and running. I just don't like the engine being sidelined for long periods of time.

There will be some "plumbing" challenges with the cooling tubes and intake pipes for sure. Hence I will have to remount the TB and of course create a new throttle linkage systems.

....can't wait!

Charlie

[DanH]

Ross, I will ask Jan about testing he has done that prompted him to cut the disc.

Charlie, would you care to share his response?

Dan share with us if you get the Newton Meter ratings on the GAB01-017.

As noted, I wrote to ask for the values required for torsional design, as spelled out in SGF's own published guidance (copied below). The response today was "Unfortunately we are not allowed to share internal company data."...meaning that particular coupler is a proprietary BMW part number.

It is possible to determine static torsional stiffness by measurement in the field, but dynamic stiffness and all the rest would be a guess, assuming someone actually wished to design a torsional system. I recommend switching to a coupler for which design data is available.

____________________________

Is it possible to obtain the following design/application data for the SGF GAB01-017 driveshaft coupler?

TKN
TKMax1
TKMax2
TKW
∆TMax
∆Kr
ΔKa
∆Kw
Ct and Ctdyn
Cr
Ca
Drel and ψ
PKW50
nmaxDauer
nmaxKurz

Thank you.

[charosenz]

I did ask Jan at Viking on a Zenith forum asking why the disc was cut and Jan replied ...

"Viking only use the OEM part and modify it according to the torsional damping required by a particular engine / gearbox / propeller combination. "

I follow up after that answer with more questions tonight asking for more details about the testing.

regardless, unless troubles surface I am comfortable using this BMW driveshaft coupling. ( but at this time of my testing I am choosing to leave my disc whole, not cut)

There are two factors that are meaningful to me. 1) There are about 500 of the viking engines and or gearbox sold and in some degree of use, and I have only heard of one"failure". From what I know based on what is shared in a viking video it was not a caused by a failure of the disc but rather the 3 prong spyder flange; and that part as since been beefed up so it has a larger flange base.

The other reasons I am comfortable with the flex disc, is that they are in use and have been for years in most of the BMW on the road. Yes, I do completely understand that their use in a automotive driveshaft is different than as an interface coupling between a engine and gearbox. But in fairness, there is also nothing that shows that it is not a perfect interface device between the engine and gearbox.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Update:

I am beginning the radiator phase. As I have often done, I am going to take advantage of what others before me have done, and for me this means copying what Ross at SDS did on his RV6A. (I know he benefitted from others doing this too).

Here are 2 pics from Ross' page.

Question for Ross if you see this post..... Can you confirm the amount of attachments for the radiator itself, is it just these bolts circled in red at the top ends of the radiator? did you capture the "L" angles with 3/16th bolts?

Thanks.

http://www.halie.com/oWS.jpg

another shot of Ross' radiator install that I plan to copy...

http://www.halie.com/oWV.png

I have a request for a quote from a local radiator shop to build it for me, I believe it will be about $400 to be built.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

There were a couple .063 vertical tabs welded to the rad tanks with 2 nutplates on each. Two 90 degree angle brackets were riveted to the belly skin with some heavy doublers sandwiched in between. These allowed me to hang the rad and hoses. The rad is really held in place mostly by the scoop. It fits into the recess you can see in some of the other photos.

You'll notice that only the core is wetted, the tanks are not in the airstream like many installations where people get lazy. My coolant hoses and connection are also out of the duct airstream.

Note the guide vanes on my installation. Through flow testing, I found these were required to avoid separation. Russell Sherwood found the same thing in his testing yet you'll find that hardly anyone else uses them.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7841/40066770993_47970686e1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/243yF7r)

Above is a photo of a Thunder Mustang setup. Superb composite work but terrible execution inside the rad duct with a big, flat wall of sheet metal for the air to hit. Lots of drag and lots of turbulence. Don't do something like this if you are trying to keep the drag low. Stacked coolers creates even more momentum loss. IMO, it's better to use a good water to oil cooler and enlarge the rad a bit to compensate for the higher heat flow to the coolant.

[charosenz]

Ross,

Thanks for the quick response. Yes, I do understand that the scoop structure also plays a role in supporting the radiator.

I also understand that the importance of channeling the air in to just he core area of the unit is important.

I can tell you and the followers here that since I plan to build my scoop out of .032 aluminum sheet, it will not be nearly as nicely rounded as what you built using wood and fiberglass. But I do plan on enclosing the whole radiator and hoses inside the scoop, and then add additional walls inside the scoop to channel the airflow to only the core area.

I am not sure yet on how I will channel the air from the engine compartment, so it does not go in to the scoop. I may have to split the fresh air in to two inlets on the sides, and funnel the cowling air in the middle and aim in downwards. I think once I get things going it will become obvious.

Thanks again.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Another aspect I am considering is the use of a manual valve in the bypass loop, or the heater core loop.

They look like this.

http://www.halie.com/oWg.jpg

Ross, do you or anyone out there have any experience with these... good or bad?

Seem like it would be easy way to adjust coolant flow, much like the purpose of the adjustable exit ramp after the radiator...

Charlie

[Hartstoc]

Charlie- Nice looking package! Do you happen to know the design duty-cycle of this engine? (time permitted at full power, or % power permissible for continuous operation). - Otis

[rv6ejguy]

Charlie. I used one of these initially as a heater valve. When I did my big overhaul in 2013 I removed the heater core from behind the panel and all the coolant passing though the cockpit. I just took hot air off the heater core/ supplemental rad mounted FWF. Works well.

I'd just use a standard ball valve if you want to restrict coolant flow somewhere. Cheaper and more robust/ reliable.

[charosenz]

Charlie. I used one of these initially as a heater valve. When I did my big overhaul in 2013 I removed the heater core from behind the panel and all the coolant passing though the cockpit. I just took hot air off the heater core/ supplemental rad mounted FWF. Works well.

I'd just use a standard ball valve if you want to restrict coolant flow somewhere. Cheaper and more robust/ reliable.

The heater core issue is a bit down the road for me but I do want to think it through and that helps. This engine actually has two bypass loops. I plan to put a heater core in one and duct the exit through the firewall for heater. Actually defrosting the windshield more than anything.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Charlie- Nice looking package! Do you happen to know the design duty-cycle of this engine? (time permitted at full power, or % power permissible for continuous operation). - Otis

Otis, welcome to the thread, and thank you for the kind words.

Your question is a good one and yet it is also one that if I am not careful, will cause this thread to spin out of control over the endless (and not solvable) debate.

It is like answering where is the ark of the covenant buried?!

There are those out there who have a firm stance that "alternative" engines cannot be relied on to run for extended periods of time at high output settings (75%+). Others believe that they can operative for well over a thousand hours at high outputs settings. Both have some research to support their positions, but mostly it is anecdotal.

Obviously since I chose to use a Honda Civil 1.8L engine. I am in the later camp.

I hope that answers your question to a limited degree and I also hope that others will resist the temptation to jump in and try to use this thread to crack open THAT Pandora's box. I just want to keep this thread as a venue to share what I am doing, and keep it fun and friendly.

Thanks again for posting and welcome to the project.

Charlie

[DanH]

The highest stress on prop blades, propshaft, gearbox, coupler, crank, and engine accessory drives is unlikely be found at 75% or WOT. Nor will it be found at any static throttle position.

[charosenz]

Here are two pics from the first fit of the engine in the cowling. The tough part for me was fitting this set up in a cowling that I made for a different engine. But, the good news is that it look like there will not have to be much modification for things to work out.

Nothing here is hooked up so don't be concerned about all the loose wires and hoses, etc.

Sorry for the hazy pic.

http://www.halie.com/oW3.jpg

The turbo side. This will be the busy side. Turbo and exhaust, coolant tubes running down and around to a belly mounted radiator, and of course the outlet from the turbo that will be routed to the other side where the intake is....(and disregard the TB you see here. That will be routed lower to fit in the cowling.....

Lost to work on!!

http://www.halie.com/oW4.jpg

[Lars]

Another aspect I am considering is the use of a manual valve in the bypass loop, or the heater core loop.

They look like this.

http://www.halie.com/oWg.jpg

Ross, do you or anyone out there have any experience with these... good or bad?

Seem like it would be easy way to adjust coolant flow, much like the purpose of the adjustable exit ramp after the radiator...

Charlie

I can comment on that valve. It looks exactly like the heater valve used on millions of Ford vehicles, decades ago, including my 1970 Bronco. They do not throttle, even though upon visual inspection it appears that they should. Heater is on if the knob (cable actuated) is off the stop. After that it doesn't matter if it's wide open or just a tiny bit. in 25+ years and a couple of hundred thousand miles of ownership I've been through a few of them. Despite regular coolant replacement they eventually rot out and spew coolant. If you choose to use one anyway, be advised that they are also directional. Some aftermarket valves have an arrow indicating flow direction stamped on them, but not all. Run them backwards and they leak.

[rv6ejguy]

Always an exciting part to put the cowling up and see how everything clears- or doesn't. Good to see the progress.

[charosenz]

I can comment on that valve. It looks exactly like the heater valve used on millions of Ford vehicles, decades ago, including my 1970 Bronco. They do not throttle, even though upon visual inspection it appears that they should. Heater is on if the knob (cable actuated) is off the stop. After that it doesn't matter if it's wide open or just a tiny bit. in 25+ years and a couple of hundred thousand miles of ownership I've been through a few of them. Despite regular coolant replacement they eventually rot out and spew coolant. If you choose to use one anyway, be advised that they are also directional. Some aftermarket valves have an arrow indicating flow direction stamped on them, but not all. Run them backwards and they leak.

Thank you for sharing your results. I am still undecided on using it. It would have some advantages to have a valve in the heater core bypass, but I am also a fan of keeping it simple and not adding "things" that are not needed.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I decided to "flip" the turbo to fit inside the cowling better. I thought I would share this because some people may not know that the center section commonly calls the CHRA (center housing rotating assembly) and the compressor can be rotated, or "Clocked".

In my case, as in a lot of installations, how you configure the mounting of the turbo can include many different positions. All are a trade off. The main issues to work through are the routing of the exhaust pipes and of course compressor outlet pipes so it can connect to the intake. None the least is to also work out the best passage for the oil drain hose.

Here is a picture of the turbo flipped compared to the previous position. You can see from my previous photos this position lowered the turbo by several inches, created a better clearance from the cowling. It does make it a bit more of a challenge to route the exhaust and the drain tube, but overall I like this set up better. You can see that I had to weld up an a short 2" adapter so as the turbo bolt pattern is different that the Honda exhaust flange.

I have not re-positioned the CHRA and Compressor yet. That is to come..

http://www.halie.com/scale/50/oWQ.jpg

Charlie

[charosenz]

One of the advantages of the engine mount and plates of this design is the flexibility to move the engine a minor amount up/down/left/right without having to build a new mount.

Once I rotated the turbo 180 degrees (flipped it) it allowed for a lot of room above the engine overall. With this new room, it just made more sense to move the engine up almost an inch. While that does not sound like much, it will be quite beneficial in my case as it will allow me to do less modification to the cowl, especially around the spinner.

To move the engine up almost an inch, I just need to lower the points on the engine plates down an inch. Here is a pic of the top engine plate being re-drilled with the engine mount bolt holes relocated.

http://www.halie.com/scale/70/oWP.jpg

Notice the lower plate with the mounting bushings still in place. The lower plate mod will be next.

Also, one tool that is exceptionally handy at this stage is the use of a Center Point Punch. As you can imagine, it is critical to get the engine mount bolts holes drilled in the precise location. Fortunately you can get a set of center point punches at most hardware stores for a reasonable price. If you venture down the road to do a alternative engine installation they are a "must" have tool. There is just no other way that is easier and more precise to transfer patterns that this.

http://www.halie.com/scale/60/oWW.jpg

I will post pics when both the plates are done. One thing I know for sure at this point, I will also have to redesign the idler pulley mount. Not a big deal but something to accomplish. Those weird challenges are almost enjoyable to me.. It is a chance to tackle something new. If that sounds crazy to you, you are probably not one to take on a alternative engine installation project. If it sounds like something you would also enjoy, you are probably "wired" just right. :) for an alternative engine install....

Charlie.

[Tomcat RV4]

Those BMW donuts are similar to what Mercedes has used for several decades.
Also redrive from air trikes in Canada use those heavy, but strong couplers up
to 180 -200 HP !Tom

[Tomcat RV4]

To all who are interested in this project for learning and not critizeing, I can personally tell you Ross cooling system is fantastic, as are his SDS systems. On another note I cannot understand cutting coupler at all, and as others have found out, a stock flywheel , thou some are heavy, a 4 cylinder anything is very happy with. Lite or no flywheel does not make sense to me at all. Tom

[DanH]

Those BMW donuts are similar to what Mercedes has used for several decades. Also redrive from air trikes in Canada use those heavy, but strong couplers up to 180 -200 HP !Tom

Couplers are engineered with specific properties. They have been used successfully in thousands of different applications, and properly applied, they are excellent. However, picking the wrong one is just another fail.

Here there is no property application available. It is impossible to do torsional design without the data, and none is available for the BMW coupler. I wrote the manufacturer and asked.

However entertaining, there is no point in watching it be done wrong again.

[charosenz]

To all who are interested in this project for learning and not critizeing, I can personally tell you Ross cooling system is fantastic, as are his SDS systems. On another note I cannot understand cutting coupler at all, and as others have found out, a stock flywheel , thou some are heavy, a 4 cylinder anything is very happy with. Lite or no flywheel does not make sense to me at all. Tom

I agree. While this setup does not use a flywheel, I can tell you the rotating mass of the components of the PSRU, coupling, and prop and flexplate all together are very important.

I could not agree more about the cooling scoop/system that Ross shared on his SDSEFI website. It saved me a TON of hours of contemplation and research. I hope I can be on that part of the project real soon. I don't have the desire to make mine as beautiful as his with hundreds of hours of shaping, sanding, a wood/fiberglass set up. Mine will be more utilitarian metal. I made a 24" Break last weekend to bend the sheets .032 aluminum for the scoop.

I also got the radiator in the mail today. While looking for the right radiator and talking with a local shop about making a custom unit, I found out that a Honda M/C CBR 1100 was so close to the dimensions I needed that I decided could not pass it up, so I ordered one. I think it will work out well, and they are plentiful and as such very reasonably priced.

Lots to post in coming weeks.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Below is a picture of the radiator I am seriously considering using for the under the belly scoop (like Ross from SDS). Arguably you can consider this somewhat akin to the P51 concept.

As you can read in the pic this is what is used on the Honda CBR 1100 M/C. They are readily available on the "net" for less than $100.

It is not exactly as wide or as thick as would be ideal, but all things that I know, this should work out OK. I also plan to use a fairly generous heater core up front in the cowling on one of the two bypass loops which will also help provide some cooling.

http://www.halie.com/oWJ.jpg

One issue that I will debate while building the scoop is to "tilt" the radiator to lower the profile. While I completely understand it does negatively affect the airflow, as thin as this core is, it won't be as much as if it was a 3" core. If it it was that thick I would not even consider a tilt. This is in the yet-to-be-decided category.

( updated - I end up not using this and went with one that was shorter and wider...…-CR)

[rv6ejguy]

I wouldn't consider tilting it. Any reduction in frontal area scoop drag will be likely offset by increased drag within the duct. If you look at the angle required to actually reduce the frontal area given the depth of the core, you'd have to lay it down a lot. This makes it harder to mount as well.

[Tomcat RV4]

Check with various race stores for shorter/wider radiator,as will make mounting/ plumbing easier ! Tom

[charosenz]

Ross,

I do agree "tilting" is not ideal, especially as it relates to the direction of the airflow, and knowing the radiator I am considering, it is only 1.2" "taller" than what is ideal, it would be easy to remove an inch for a better (reduced) frontal footprint.

I remember your write up, you made sure to avoid angles that are greater than 7 degrees. This is consistent with what I have read in various other articles. I also agree that ideally tuft testing for laminar flow is very helpful, and if I remember correctly in your case this helped you to learn that adding a sheet to direct flow to reduce separation and get more laminar flow.

Thanks for your willingness to share your experience.

I do plan to create a cardboard mock up and see what I like, as well as see how well things go together and of course, how much I can keep it simple but effective.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Check with various race stores for shorter/wider radiator,as will make mounting/ plumbing easier ! Tom

Tom,

Thanks, I agree, and I have spent considerable time on research and various mod shops like Jegs, Summit etc....I do see how wider and shorter would reduce how much you see from a side view under the belly...but I don't see how it would make the install any easier....

We do have a very reputable radiator shop in town that does a ton of custom work and they have not found anything closer than this radiator. Based on the numbers (below) I can't see the benefit of having a custom one made...... at least not based on what I know now....

If my notes are correct, here are the numbers that Ross has shared on his set up:

119 in2
267 in3

And I believe his engine produces considerably more HP than I expect I will ever get close to. And based on what I remember reading on some days his set up over cools to the extent at times has to reduce the intake opening as it cools too much. (Ross please correct me if I got this wrong).

This set up currently has:

143 in2
230 in3

I am good with those numbers...

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

I'm making about 160hp on takeoff at 35 inches.

The rad numbers are correct but I also have a 54 in2/ 88 in3 heater core plumbed in the thermostat loop which is active at all times and fed by a round, 3 inch ram tube below the spinner.

Extended ground idle and climb are your big cooling challenges on hot days.

[charosenz]

Ross,

I appreciate the numbers on the cooler on the bypass loop, I was wondering what size it was. I plan to do the same.

Are you using a oil sandwich cooler? If so what size cooler on it?

I also found another radiator and a professional sheet metal guy who is willing to chop it for me for next to nothing so the other one would have a core that is 20" wide, and 2.2" thick. I would probably cut it down to about 7.5" tall.

Not a huge difference but maybe enough to avoid some high temp on the hottest days....like waiting for TO at OSH!

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

Yes, I use a Mocal sandwich plate with oil thermostat and a large Earls cooler. This lets the oil warm up quickly and handles the oil temps nicely in a long climb. The turbo adds a lot of heat to the oil compared to an atmo engine.

On the Subaru, due to the proximity of the oil and coolant passages, oil and coolant temps are heavily tied to each other.

Yes, if going to Osh or anywhere with long holds, you need to be able to dissipate heat from the coolant almost indefinitely.

I'll measure the cooler next time I have the cowling off but I'd estimate it's about 9 X 9 X 1.25 inches

[charosenz]

Ross,

Good to know. Hate to pepper you with all the questions, but do you feed the oil cooler with a blast tube? I am sure I saw scat duct on your heater core.....

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

The right cowl inlet is dedicated to the oil cooler.

[charosenz]

Now that I have the mount done, the cowling on, the turbo flipped, and the decision made to install the main radiator under the fuse.....it is time to get serious about "plumbing" and routing.

I need to find a home in the cowling for the:

1) Intercooler. Looks like this will be "inside" the engine mount. The cool air duct will probably be from a naca inlet in the bottom of the cowl.
2) Heater core on the Bypass loop. Looks like this will fit just inside the left inlet.
3) Oil cooler. Not sure yet. I might be able to snake hose from the right inlet but I need to do other work first.
4) Exhaust. This will loop 135 degrees to angle down outside the bottom of the cowling about mid way.
5) Route the coolant lines to the belly radiator.
6) Clock the turbo and create new oil feed and drain lines. These will have to be redone since I flipped the turbo.
7) New mount for the Throttle body. Which of course means new linkage too. Fun....

If you are new here and wondering that this all looks like the last few pics of the engine in the cowling are on post 267...

This should keep me busy for a couple of days. :)

[rv6ejguy]

The NACA duct isn't a good choice to feed heat exchangers, especially a thick one like a typical intercooler. A ram duct will be far more effective if you have a place to fit that in.

[charosenz]

The NACA duct isn't a good choice to feed heat exchangers, especially a thick one like a typical intercooler. A ram duct will be far more effective if you have a place to fit that in.

Yes for sure. I certainly am open to that idea, I would think that a 2" opening would be more than enough (considering it is ram air up to 160+ mph) (?)...and the bottom of my cowl slants downward so it really does lead well to doing this. I might try to create a mock up using PVC pipe of what just crossed my mind to see if this is what you are thinking.....(Essentially having a 2 inch tube protrude a very slight amount and glass it in...)

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

Yes for sure. I certainly am open to that idea, I would think that a 2" opening would be more than enough (considering it is ram air up to 160+ mph) (?)...and the bottom of my cowl slants downward so it really does lead well to doing this. I might try to create a mock up using PVC pipe of what just crossed my mind to see if this is what you are thinking.....(Essentially having a 2 inch tube protrude a very slight amount and glass it in...)

Charlie

I doubt if a 2 inch round duct would provide the required air and you'd need a very efficient diffuser to wet the whole HX surface efficiently.

[charosenz]

Based on some early design ideas i do think I ll be able to get the air flow coming at the face of the heater core and intercooler.

There's always a trade off. Either bends in the supply routes or bends in the cooling tubes, but rarely are both sets straight.

I know the goal is to work on the design to get the most fresh air there with as few (sharp) bends as possible. And... without compromising the supply lines.....

[rv6ejguy]

The bigger concern is that a 2 inch round hole only has an area of around 3 square inches and you won't get the same mass flow as my inlet which has about 17. 17 may be overkill but pretty sure 3 isn't nearly enough. Climb is where you'll see most oil temp issues where your mass flow is about half of what it is at 160 mph.

[charosenz]

Sorry I may not have been clear. I'm leaning towards a ram air for the intercooler. The left nose inlet for the heater core and a separate dedicated ram air for the oil cooler. Sizing of ducting TBD...

[rv6ejguy]

Sorry I may not have been clear. I'm leaning towards a ram air for the intercooler. The left nose inlet for the heater core and a separate dedicated ram air for the oil cooler. Sizing of ducting TBD...

Depending on compressor efficiency, boost and altitude, the heat load of the intercooler can be substantial and you'll need a fair size duct feeding that too. I was way too small on that initially. I eventually re-positioned the intercooler and tripled the size of the duct feeding it. IATs all good now.

[charosenz]

I got the heater core yesterday. This is what I plan to use for the bypass loop. This one has a core that is 9"x6"x1.5". It is a heater core from the CJ series of Jeeps.

The pics show it held up front behind the left inlet of the cowl. It fits very nice there. But if i moved it to the right side I could dedicate the left side for the intercooler, which would save me the need punch a hole in the bottom of the cowl for a new ram air source for the intercooler. The only problem is the right side of the cowl is really busy and squeezing even that small heater core will be a challenge.

http://www.halie.com/scale/80/o1R.jpg

http://www.halie.com/scale/70/o1Y.jpg

[charosenz]

Here is a look at the newer slightly larger main radiator that will go under the belly. I opted to go with it instead of the Honda M/C CBR 1100 radiator because it was slightly bigger. The Honda was about 200 Cu In, and this will be about 290 cu.in. Since they both had to be cut down, I figured might as well go with the one slightly larger. Plus at 24" wide this just happens to be the right width for me to be able to capture the angle aluminum in the belly which will be a good place to rivet to.

This is in the cut down stage prior to being welded.

http://www.halie.com/o1r.jpg

This pic below gives a better view into the cut off section. I used a metal blade on my table saw, which does an excellent job of cutting it. the top part of the core is actually a coolant tube that I split with the table saw blade. I will reinforce this with a 0.125 bar of 6061-t6 as well as cap off the side tanks. The tanks were much larger than I prefer at 2.75" square, but not so large I was interested in cutting them down. It calcs out to about 4.3 lbs of water in the side tanks so not real bad...

http://www.halie.com/o1w.jpg

One thing you cannot see it the filler cap that I cut off and this will be closed off with 0.125" 6061-T6 as well.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I thought I would show my newly modified TB mount. It is in the mock up phase and I hope to have it welded by Tuesday.

P.S. I cut 1/4" and 3/8" aluminum plate on my table saw with a non-ferrous metal blade with no kerf. These are common in the aviation section in Lowes or HD. Works great!

http://halie.com/o1G.jpg

It will go where the intake variable length runner motor/actuator usually live. I took it out. Not beneficial for my needs. ''

There is no free lunch. I spent a lot of time last weekend trying to find the best home for the intercooler and after much trial and error it will live within the engine mount. I will dedicate the 4" line straight from the left nose inlet for it. I do believe it will work well.

I still plan to put the heater core up front on the right side and probably run the oil sandwich coolant lines over tot he left side and feed it from a naca duct.

The real challenge will be getting the main coolant lines to the belly radiator and of course build the belly scoop .

Lots more coming in this thread soo.

[charosenz]

Tomorrow will be the 1 year anniversary of this thread. Considering it logged over 36000 views is really remarkable.

For a variety of reasons there are a lot of people interested in this project, at least conceptually. I just don't think it is very common to average 100 views a day for a year, for a simple project like this.

I hope this encourages others to be willing to share their ideas and projects, even if it includes an alternative engine for power.

I also hope we can learn from each other, remain respectful, and just sit back and enjoy the process.

I truly appreciate all the words of support and encouragement.

Much more to follow...

Charlie

[Tomcat RV4]

Besides BMW, Mercedes has also used, Air Trikes has used those couplings
on more applications than Jan has seen !

[Piper J3]

Tomorrow will be the 1 year anniversary of this thread. Considering it logged over 36000 views is really remarkable.

Continued best luck... I've been following your progress for several months. Wish I lived closer so I could come and take first hand look.

[Tomcat RV4]

I have watched your progress, very impressed.I know you are busy, but could you e mail me a copy or even rough scetch of your engine mount measurements,just part on engine to mount ,not mount to firewall.THANKS
pvnyejag2@juno.com. Tomcatrv4. Tom Hankamp

[charosenz]

Continued best luck... I've been following your progress for several months. Wish I lived closer so I could come and take first hand look.

It is always encouraging to hear others out there are finding some value or enjoyment with this project. Visitor are always welcome but i know you're too far to just stop by. Thanks for checking in. Charlie.

[charosenz]

I have watched your progress, very impressed.I know you are busy, but could you e mail me a copy or even rough scetch of your engine mount measurements,just part on engine to mount ,not mount to firewall.THANKS
pvnyejag2@juno.com. Tomcatrv4. Tom Hankamp

Sure. Be happy to. Ire-did the plates to have the engine and prop fit the cowling better. Fortunately it's an easy and inexpensive mount design and it is easy to modify.
If there interest I could post it all here.

Unfortunately I'm out of state next week on a working vacation. So nothing to share real soon..

[charosenz]

Below is a test fit of the radiator under the belly both from the side and the front. It is bit hard to see but the first pic is from the side and shows a carboard template of how the side of the box that the radiator would be housed in.

Truthfully, it is longer than I think I am comfortable with. Ross if you read this can you share how long your box turned out to be - front to back? I think this is roughly 42 inches total front to back.

http://www.halie.com/o1i.jpg

The next pic is of the radiator positioned under the belly. It is just held up there on cardboard boxes.

www.halie.com/o10.jpg

[charosenz]

The last post would not take the other pic of the radiator under the belly so let me try it again,.

http://www.halie.com/o1X.jpg

What do you guys think?

Do you think the side view of the cardboard template shows a box that is too long? Personally I am leaning towards shortening it up 4" to 6"

More pics to follow.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

I'll measure mine tomorrow. You can shorten the aft part behind the rad as the air won't separate as it converges.

[charosenz]

Thanks Ross. No hurry I have lots to keep me busy...

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

Mine is 49 inches long.

[charosenz]

Ross, thanks. Thats very helpful. But it also surprises me..

I think it's because yours has the nice contours and my sides will be straight tapers that mine looks longer comparatively. I measured my cardboard template and it was 48".

Charlie.

[rv6ejguy]

My rad is about 2/3rds of the way down the duct from the inlet plus it has a guide vane to turn the air upwards and avoid separation.

[charosenz]

I am sure my tanks are wider than yours so I definitely will be fairing them out of the flow. My tank will also be about 2/3 of the way "in" the box. Since my cowling will protrude down in the airstream a bit my opening overall will be larger. I have to make it wider too. I am leaning towards 4"H x about 18" wide for the inlet and about 5"H x 18" outlet. The outlet will not have a swing ramp to vary the outlet. If it cools too much I may consider adding an adjustable flap up front, but that will be put off for quite some time after much testing.

As far as attachment goes, I am lucky that I have "L" aluminum stiffners in the floor right above the front "walls" above the tank. I probably will use driven rivets there and pulled rivets the rest of the "L" angle where it attaches to the belly. All angle will be 3/4" 0.63" 6061. I plan to use #8 screws/nutplates for the side walls of the box where they attach to the angles at top. The rest of the box will be LP4-3 rivets from Vans.

The tank will be its own section 8" long. The back will be a section and the front another section all 0.32" 2024-t3 aluminum sheet from Vans. Over all it should be about 8.5" tall, 24" wide at the tank, and about 43" long...

Feel free to comment on the plan...

Pic of shorten cardboard mock up.....

http://www.halie.com/o1j.jpg


Charlie

[DanH]

I am leaning towards 4"H x about 18" wide for the inlet and about 5"H x 18" outlet. The outlet will not have a swing ramp to vary the outlet. If it cools too much I may consider adding an adjustable flap up front, but that will be put off for quite some time after much testing.

Feel free to comment on the plan...

Those are very large areas, both inlet and outlet, in particular given the theoretical higher efficiency of a water to air exchanger. And closing the inlet in order to to throttle flow would be bass-ackwards. You want to throttle the exit. "Swing ramp" sounds right.

Before going too much further down this path, are you sure you can't move the exchanger(s) inside the cowl? Most sport airplanes get real slow with something the size of a garden wheelbarrow strapped to the belly. You're a good fabricator; treat it as a challenge. Heck, Eggenfellner did it with the Subaru packages, and I note SARL racers with nicely integrated water cooling.

[Jpm757]

Given any thought to a P-51 style scoop?

[charosenz]

Those are very large areas, both inlet and outlet, in particular given the theoretical higher efficiency of a water to air exchanger. And closing the inlet in order to to throttle flow would be bass-ackwards. You want to throttle the exit. "Swing ramp" sounds right.

Before going too much further down this path, are you sure you can't move the exchanger(s) inside the cowl? Most sport airplanes get real slow with something the size of a garden wheelbarrow strapped to the belly. You're a good fabricator; treat it as a challenge. Heck, Eggenfellner did it with the Subaru packages, and I note SARL racers with nicely integrated water cooling.

Dan,

No doubt this will surely add drag to the ship. But honestly that scoop (while a aberration for an RV purist) is actually starting to grow on me...But yes, I have spent hours trying to squeeze it in the cowl and the only way that would be possible would put the radiator sideways to the flow and even then it would be real tight. I know a few of the rotary guys used condenser cores up front and other custom radiators but this engine is tight up front on the right side - just the way it turned out....But yes, I think with some custom work and probably using two small radiators you could pull it off. Or if you build a custom cowl, but I don't want to do that again....

Actually the other concept I seriously considered was laying a thin one inch core flat against the belly. This would greatly reduce the side view (Height?) of the scoop and help a lot in the Looks category. I think a one inch core that was about 24" x 18" would work quite well. There would be some challenges with the tubing, but nothing too tough. Ultimately I went this way because I know several have done it and had very good success with it.

The next post asked about a P-51 style scoop. Yes, absolutely I did consider that. If you mean just a small scoop in the belly with the radiator aft in the fuse..... The only downsides this would be what it does the balance and that far aft with this airframe and the internal ducting for outlet was enough to cause me to pass.....And of course you would still end up with a inlet down in the airstream under the belly so not a whole lot of "gain" and lots of extra work. But yes, I thought of it.

[BillL]

Dan,

No doubt this will surely add drag to the ship. But honestly that scoop (while a aberration for an RV purist) is actually starting to grow on me...But yes, I have spent hours trying to squeeze it in the cowl and the only way that would be possible would put the radiator sideways to the flow and even then it would be real tight. I know a few of the rotary guys used condenser cores up front and other custom radiators but this engine is tight up front on the right side - just the way it turned out....But yes, I think with some custom work and probably using two small radiators you could pull it off. Or if you build a custom cowl, but I don't want to do that again....

Actually the other concept I seriously considered was laying a thin one inch core flat against the belly. This would greatly reduce the side view (Height?) of the scoop and help a lot in the Looks category. I think a one inch core that was about 24" x 18" would work quite well. There would be some challenges with the tubing, but nothing too tough. Ultimately I went this way because I know several have done it and had very good success with it.

The next post asked about a P-51 style scoop. Yes, absolutely I did consider that. If you mean just a small scoop in the belly with the radiator aft in the fuse..... The only downsides this would be what it does the balance and that far aft with this airframe and the internal ducting for outlet was enough to cause me to pass.....And of course you would still end up with a inlet down in the airstream under the belly so not a whole lot of "gain" and lots of extra work. But yes, I thought of it.

Ross did some extensive testing on his cooling, I'll look it up, but if memory serves, he had quite low drag. High exit velocity. The heating of the air makes up (some) for the drag across HX. It would be wise to simply improve on his proven work.

[DanH]

Ross did some extensive testing on his cooling, I'll look it up, but if memory serves, he had quite low drag. High exit velocity.

Quite low cooling drag (internal flow)...an attempt to prove the Meredeth Effect, i.e. thrust created by an exit velocity higher than freestream. And he did prove it, sort of. The published maximum exit velocity value (from Kitplanes) was 104% of freestream at 80 KIAS.

That's very good, but note that at 80 knots, the actual freestream velocity delivered to the diffuser inlet is much higher than indicated airspeed, due to the huge propeller outflow component. The prop outflow effect can also be seen in measurements of an aircooled installation:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1177277&postcount=198

Even if the exit velocity was less than 100% of freestream at cruise speeds (and I suspect it was), it is still very likely a lot higher than the average Lycoming cowl. That part is a win, a reduction in drag due to internal flows.

Returning to the context of this thread, Ross wrote that he made no attempt to measure the external aerodynamic drag of the installed belly pod. Further, the system as proposed retains flow through the cowl, another drag cost. I'm suggesting Charlie consider all his options before hanging a wheelbarrow-sized pod on the belly. If the exchanger(s) can't be fitted inside the cowl, then perhaps take a look at the beautiful underwing ducted exchangers we recently saw on an RV-8 in Oz. Simply moving the pod out of the propeller outflow would mean a significant reduction in external drag.

[rv6ejguy]

I picked up a solid 5-6 knots with my belly scoop over nothing there before (well some other small inlet and outlet ducts feeding from multiple HXs). When viewed from the front, there isn't much frontal area added since the stock exit duct area covers most of the rad duct frontal area. Looks like the momentum recovery offsets most or all of the duct drag in my case.

Cowling mounted can work but the result is more weight forward, poor momentum recovery and often marginal cooling.

I've followed numerous rad layouts and had internally mounted rads on my own plane for years. I spent a lot of time changing it all over to the present layout and couldn't be happier. It's lighter, faster and improved the C of G while cooling much better than previously.

You shouldn't need more than 25 square inches of inlet area with a proper duct shape to cool 180hp in flight. Extra area may be beneficial in ground cooling. With extra inlet area and a movable exit door, your cruise drag penalty is probably slight. Lots of compromises involved here. Certainly you don't want to overheat on an 80-90 degree day with a long ground hold somewhere.

I wouldn't look to Eggenfellner's layout as a good model. Lots of folks had marginal or inadequate climb cooling and had to step climb or cruise climb on hot days.

[rv6ejguy]

Quite low cooling drag (internal flow)...an attempt to prove the Meredeth Effect, i.e. thrust created by an exit velocity higher than freestream. And he did prove it, sort of. The published maximum exit velocity value (from Kitplanes) was 104% of freestream at 80 KIAS.

That's very good, but note that at 80 knots, the actual freestream velocity delivered to the diffuser inlet is much higher than indicated airspeed, due to the huge propeller outflow component. The prop outflow effect can also be seen in measurements of an aircooled installation:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1177277&postcount=198

Even if the exit velocity was less than 100% of freestream at cruise speeds (and I suspect it was), it is still very likely a lot higher than the average Lycoming cowl. That part is a win, a reduction in drag due to internal flows.

Returning to the context of this thread, Ross wrote that he made no attempt to measure the external aerodynamic drag of the installed belly pod. Further, the system as proposed retains flow through the cowl, another drag cost. I'm suggesting Charlie consider all his options before hanging a wheelbarrow-sized pod on the belly. If the exchanger(s) can't be fitted inside the cowl, then perhaps take a look at the beautiful underwing ducted exchangers we recently saw on an RV-8 in Oz. Simply moving the pod out of the propeller outflow would mean a significant reduction in external drag.

It's good to consider all options but we who've already done it, have.

Most of my flight testing was done at 100-120 KIAS at around 6000 MSL. Yes, I had no way to quantify where the 5-6 extra knots came from- the magic properties of momentum recovery or the removal of several other ram ducts, NACA ducts and exit ducts.

Prop outflow is significant within a foot or so of the prop and drops off rapidly with distance. You can see a lot of the F1 guys run the carb snorkel within a few inches of the prop and see some very useful gains in MAP. My inlet is almost 40 inches from the prop disc. I did a test at some point to try to determine this figure but not sure if I recorded it. I'll consult my old notes. I only recall it wasn't very significant on my installation in flight.

Several Unlimited P51s experimented with removing the rad duct over the years and found little to no gain in speed. This again suggests that, properly done, a good duct has minimal, if any penalty. They could have fitted wing rads if they were better but other tests on the Spitfire and BF109 post war, showed that the short duct has high inlet separation which means more drag ultimately. No surprise there, though they could have been vastly improved with a guide vane I'd think, judging from what Russell Sherwood and I both saw in testing.

The big minus is that rad ducts on the wings outside the prop arc guarantee overheating on the ground within minutes on a hot day. Simply not practical for a GA airplane.

[DanH]

Prop outflow is significant within a foot or so of the prop and drops off rapidly with distance.

Not that simple. Consider an RV at 1800 RPM on the runup pad. Airspeed is zero, yet prop outflow would make it hard to stand upright behind the tail. Stand behind one at 2700 RPM, tied to a truck, if you can.

Prop outflow as an incremental addition to freestream drops off with increasing airframe velocity, or decreased power.

My inlet is almost 40 inches from the prop disc. I did a test at some point to try to determine this figure but not sure if I recorded it. I'll consult my old notes. I only recall it wasn't very significant on my installation in flight.

It would not be at cruise settings. Was the 104% at 80 measured with climb power, level at steady low power, or with engine at idle, in a glide?

The big minus is that rad ducts on the wings outside the prop arc guarantee overheating on the ground within minutes on a hot day. Simply not practical for a GA airplane.

Interesting point. Was Geoff Braddock having that problem?

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=145250

BTW...

This is pretty much the recipe I'd use today if I was doing another RV using an alternative engine.

[rv6ejguy]

Not that simple. Consider an RV at 1800 RPM on the runup pad. Airspeed is zero, yet prop outflow would make it hard to stand upright behind the tail. Stand behind one at 2700 RPM, tied to a truck, if you can.

Prop outflow as an incremental addition to freestream drops off with increasing airframe velocity, or decreased power.

It would not be at cruise settings. Was the 104% at 80 measured with climb power, level at steady low power, or with engine at idle, in a glide?

Interesting point. Was Geoff Braddock having that problem?

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=145250

BTW...

Indeed, full throttle on the ground on my plane produces a couple inches of pressure at the cowl cheeks, no dispute there. In flight, a different story. Confirmation by measurement. If I get a chance, I'll instrument again and fly if I can't find my old data.

Now, if we look at something like Strega which has had hundreds of mods done to make it faster, including a massively revised scoop, radiator and cooling system trying to find every knot through drag reduction, you think they wouldn't have gone to wing mounted rads if they thought they would have gone faster?

My data was taken at steady state, straight and level, stabilizing for a couple minutes in most cases. Trying to measure for my purposes in the climb would have thrown more variables into the mix.

Looks like Geoff's installation would have some of the rad face in the prop blast. Certainly if rads our mounted outboard of this, you'd only have still air conduction on the ground and essentially zero cooling. No delta, no flow, no cooling.

[charosenz]

Folks,

I have not firm up the exact inlet and outlet dimensions. The main difference between Ross' set up and what I am dealing with is the center section of my cowling bottom does extend down below the fuse belly some. Right now I am looking at 4"H x 18" inlet which I know is a lot more than what Ross recommends. But....about 40% is covered by the cowling belly. I will need to stay at the 18" width of the inlet due to the bottom cowling bump, but Ross' research and experience gives me encouragement that I should be able to get the height of the inlet down to 3" or so. I will create another cardboard mock up soon.

[DanH]

I have not firm up the exact inlet and outlet dimensions. The main difference between Ross' set up and what I am dealing with is the center section of my cowling bottom does extend down below the fuse belly some. Right now I am looking at 4"H x 18" inlet which I know is a lot more than what Ross recommends. But....about 40% is covered by the cowling belly. I will need to stay at the 18" width of the inlet due to the bottom cowling bump, but Ross' research and experience gives me encouragement that I should be able to get the height of the inlet down to 3" or so. I will create another cardboard mock up soon.

Adding frontal area because you already added frontal area? Brother Charlie, think outside The Box.

If the center of the cowl hangs low, perhaps you could use two inlets, one on each side of the hanging cowl section.

Perhaps two inlets and two exits....two separate ducts systems. The narrowed width of each heat exchanger could proportionally shorten the inlet and exit diffusers. Conceptually it would be a little like the underwing exchangers, except being inboard on the fuselage, you are not so constrained in overall length. And I'd try to move them rearward some. You want the inlet in a high pressure area and the exit in a low pressure area.

There is also an aesthetic aspect. None of this need look like a wheelbarrow.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=745120&postcount=129

[charosenz]

Dan,

I honestly don't know what causes you to feel the need to ridicule and nitpick my project - calling it a wheel barrow. I can think of many reasons what causes this behavior but I am not a psychiatrist.

It is rude and most important it is unwanted. I have asked you to stop and even others have asked you to stop. Yet it continues.

I have already had a moderator delete one of your post hoping you would get the hint.

There are too many good people who for reasons of their own, are interested in my project and your unwelcome parental behavior stinks. So regardless of your reasons - stop.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I thought it might be help or of interest at least to most people, what the cowl bump and its relation to the belly inlet looked like so here is a pic.

Notice on the cardboard template there is a line at the bottom marking where a 3"height would take the inlet as compared to the template itself which is 4". Based on Ross' real world experience I am leaning towards making it 3".

http://www.halie.com/scale/80/o12.jpg

[charosenz]

Here is a pic of the radiator submersed in water where I pressurized it to 15 lbs. It passed with no bubbles.

http://www.halie.com/scale/50/o1B.jpg

[DanH]

I honestly don't know what causes you to feel the need to ridicule and nitpick my project - calling it a wheel barrow.

Put that chip back in your pocket Charlie. You asked for comments. It's unreasonable to expect nothing but "Wow, that's great!"

I've been dead serious. The proposed inlet and exit areas are excessive, throttling the inlet would be a technical error, the additional frontal area adds external drag, and it's not going to be pretty. I don't believe in being critical without proposing solutions, so I've linked photos of other liquid cooled aircraft, proposed ideas, and explored details. You're under no obligation to consider any of these things, but they are legitimate commentary.

[rv6ejguy]

On the inlet sizing question, assuming you have the rest of the duct/ diffuser shape and rad sizing correct, experiments by Russell Sherwood have shown that he can cool 230hp with less than 15 square inches of inlet area. He said he'd go down to 12.5 if there was another iteration in the future. It does look like ground cooling is impacted somewhat by reducing the inlet size so be careful there.

On my installation, the main rad inlet is a lot bigger than that primarily because I couldn't get my hand and wrench in to access the bolts which attach the splitter to the rad and would have had great difficulty in laying in the glass and resin if it had been smaller. As you shrink the inlet, the diffuser shape and guide vane placement become more critical to make it all work efficiently so that is a consideration too.

The penalty of a slightly oversize inlet is minimal from what we know as long as you can throttle the exit.

This all being said, none of us want to re-do a rad scoop design which doesn't cool adequately in the climb or on the ground so we tend to fudge the rad and inlet sizes upwards.

[charosenz]

[QUOTE=DanH;1335924]Put that chip back in your pocket Charlie. You asked for comments. It's unreasonable to expect nothing but "Wow, that's greaD

Dan,. You missed it completely. Your parental dismissive comments are unwelcome.

I have always welcome constructive comments that are respectful. And when they come from some one who has real world experience like Ross, it has value. When it comes from someone who works at putting others down to make themselves (think they) sound smart it's arrogance. Stop it. Move on to somewhere else.

[charosenz]

On the inlet sizing question, assuming you have the rest of the duct/ diffuser shape and rad sizing correct, experiments by Russell Sherwood have shown that he can cool 230hp with less than 15 square inches of inlet area. He said he'd go down to 12.5 if there was another iteration in the future. It does look like ground cooling is impacted somewhat by reducing the inlet size so be careful there.

On my installation, the main rad inlet is a lot bigger than that primarily because I couldn't get my hand and wrench in to access the bolts which attach the splitter to the rad and would have had great difficulty in laying in the glass and resin if it had been smaller. As you shrink the inlet, the diffuser shape and guide vane placement become more critical to make it all work efficiently so that is a consideration too.

The penalty of a slightly oversize inlet is minimal from what we know as long as you can throttle the exit.

This all being said, none of us want to re-do a rad scoop design which doesn't cool adequately in the climb or on the ground so we tend to fudge the rad and inlet sizes upwards.

Ross the real world experience and research is super helpful. I am incorporating these concepts (generally) in my design. I'm still in the cardboard template stage. The radiator will be at or larger than yours, even though I will be at lower HP.

In case some folks have not noticed I'm not driven to win style points and while I appreciate and value learning from others who have actual been there experience, I,'m also not driven to spend lots hours to achieve perfect efficiency. Others who have gone before me like you and Dave Anders, my hats off to you!. And thank you very much for sharing your lessons leard.

My scoop will be aluminum sheet. It's what I'm comfortable working with. It will be simple. It will be attached by screws and easily removable if needed.

It won't be perfect. It will work well. I'll continue to share my progress as long as there is interest.

Charlie.

[DanH]

Put that chip back in your pocket Charlie. You asked for comments. It's unreasonable to expect nothing but "Wow, that's great"

Dan,. You missed it completely. Your parental dismissive comments are unwelcome.

You're under no obligation to consider them, but they remain legitimate commentary...and not written for you alone.

Stop it. Move on to somewhere else.

Request declined. You post as you wish, as will I, both within a reasonable interpretation of the VAF rules. Please note that personal comments are generally not acceptable.

[rocketman1988]

arrogance noun
ar?​ro?​gance | \ ˈer-ə-gən(t)s , ˈa-rə-\
Definition of arrogance
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

[DanH]

arrogance noun


Yeah, yeah. Please note that personal attacks are generally not acceptable.

[rv7charlie]

Hey Dan, I would have figured the post was pointed in a different direction....
But hey, what do Lower Slobovians know?

[BMC_Dave]

Kinda hard to post on a public forum asking what others think, then get mad when people give you well reasoned input with examples. I for one appreciate the discussion and think it should be perpetually available for future builders.

[charosenz]

Comments even constructive critical ones have always been welcome. But there is no excuse for comments that are demeaning. To put this another way, most people can be constructive even in critque without feeling the need to be parental or rude.

Let's hope future comments are in the spirit that is so we'll stated by Bob Collins in his open letter on the VAF rules page.

If you have not read it please do so and use it as the VAF leadership has requested.

Charlie.

[rocketman1988]

I see no personal attack, only the definition of a word.

If, however, you feel it applies, consider it ?legitimate commentary?...

Make it a great day.

[charosenz]

Attached is a pic of the new adapter I had made up that repositioned the TB so it will fill well in the cowl. There were several factors that caused me to chose this. One being the location of the exit of the turbo, second my desire to try to get "straight on" air flow to the intercooler, and of course the challenge of obtaining a smooth travel for the throttle cable. Given these factors this seemed to be the best choice.

http://www.halie.com/o1Q.jpg

[Piper J3]

Charlie

I really enjoy following your progress. You get a lot done in short order. It's amassing what people accomplish these days. When I was a kid the talk of the neighborhood was a guy building a row boat in his basement.

Keep up excellent work. Hope to see you flying soon...

[charosenz]

Jim,

Thanks. It is a labor of love for sure. Your signature line shows you have a lot of experience and my hat is off to you! Truthfully my day job really gets in the way but fortunately I retire soon, and then I plan to burn the midnight oil.

The honda on an RV6A airframe is certainly not for everyone, but I enjoy it and I am optimistic that it will work out. What is most value to me has been those who have forged the path before me by installing an alternative engine in a plane and seeing it fly. I have learned a lot from those who are willing to share their success and failures (which is really hard for some people for obvious reasons).

Glad there are a few out there who enjoy what is happening here.

Good flying to you.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

I'm doing my annual now and will also install my twin Shorai batteries while I have it all apart.

I measured my oil cooler and it's about 8 X 8 X 2 inches.
I also use a Mocal oil thermostat to feed or bypass the cooler. Helps with the warmup in cooler weather.

[charosenz]

Ross,

Thank for checking that out and posting. I am convinced it is important to have an oil cooler if using a turbo.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I am doing some initial testing to try to find the best location for the intercooler. It is important to know that the intercooler orientationn as seen in this pic probably not going to end up as you see it in this pic. But I thought it would be interesting for some to see the beginning stages of where and how the intercooler will be plumbed. I also have two intercoolers and may use the other one and may even modify them as needed.

I am trying to get it so it will be "straight on" to the air that will be routed to it in cat hose. Which means it may be vertical. Of course this will also depend on how well this interfaces with the tubing that comes from the turbo.

One thing that is important to know when looking at this is that the exhaust will be where the orange line is. I noted that because many would ask why I did not consider this location for the intercooler.

Others may wonder why I don't put it forward on the left side of the cowling. One reason is that it would be a long haul for the charged air to get there and then back to the TB. The other is that it would be tough to get "straight on" flow to cool it.

Lots more testing fitting to happen before final decisions are made.


http://www.halie.com/o1a.jpg

[charosenz]

Many of you will already know this and may have additional helpful hints to add, please do so...

As I begin to fabricate the aluminum sheet box (Belly scoop) for the radiator mount, I wanted to do some testing to get the right radius of bend. I will have to keep it fairly sharp due to the bottom of the radiator is square and the metal will be tight up against it.

I made my own break with a couple of pieces of straight and flat wood with a simple hardware store hinge. I use a 1/8" angle steel with 1.5" x 1.5" sides as the "break" to clamp down on the metal to keep it secure while it is being bent.

You will see in the pic below (I apologize it is quite big, there is detail in it that I wanted to make sure was fairly easily recognized) there are 3 test pieces with various radius curves. You get a more gradual bend if you set the "break" bar back from the hinge. It is hard to see in the pic but if you look close at the right side at the end, you will see a line labeled as "1/4" and another "1/2". Below you will see the results of the test. The sharpest was done at zero, the next at 1/4" offset and the last at 1/2" offset.

Also notice the bottom board is longer than "tilt" board - This is important so when you bend the sheet you can go past 90 degrees without hitting the clamps.

http://www.halie.com/o1d.jpg

[bobnoffs]

i made a welded 26 gallon tank for my 12 and i made the bends for the flanges and short bends. for .062'' 5052 the book says 3/16'' radius [i think]. i took 3/16'' steel bar stock 11/2'' wide and with a bench grinder and belt sander i did a pretty decent job of rounding the edge. i set this bar back at least the thickness of the sheet metal from the edge where the brake bends. 5052 is a little softer but even with 2024 and 6061 i get real nice bends, no indication along the bend that the sheet metal has been weakened. i use this bar for all my bending.

[charosenz]

Bob, Thanks for sharing. Your set up sounds better. If I would have had that thick of a piece that was long enough I would have done the same.

If you have a pic of that rounded edge feel free to post it here.

Charlie.

[rvbuilder2002]

It is easy to make inserts of varying radii to use in a traditional (sharp nosed)
or home made bending break.

Just cut a few strips of thin (~ .020) material about 2" wide.
Bend one with the brake to about 120 deg (or as far as it will go) and then keep progressively adding another under the previous bent one. Each one will have a bigger radius than the last.

You can then nest as many as you need to get the radius you desire , and with the set back adjusted properly the bend you make will be totally symmetrical.

[charosenz]

Scott weird you mentioned that. The general concept ran through my mind but I had never done that or seen it done.

Thanks for sharing, I sure people will try it. I will.

Charlie

[charosenz]

As I venture towards the fabrication of the radiator belly scoop I am revisiting my supply of pulled rivets.

While driven rivets are certainly stronger, there are a wide variety of pulled rivets to consider.

I personally like the LP pulled (blind rivets that Vans sells, but I know there are a lot more rivets on the market and it can get confusing. I am certainly no expert but I thought I would share some of my observations.

One thing that is often noticed is that some rivets are sometimes labeled as "non-structural". There are design features that dictate that label including body alloy, shaft alloy, head shape, and stem shaft retention. The one feature that seems to stand out more than others though is the length of the remaining portion of the stem shaft. Does it break off at the "top" of the head, or considerably lower in the bottom of the body.

The best example of this is when you look at the Cherry "N" rivet verses the Cherry "Q" rivet. The Cherry "N" stem breaks off low in the finished body and does not transcend the line where the two parent metals are mated. Hence it provides no extra value in shear tension. On the other hand the Cherry "Q" stem is designed to break off up high towards the "top" of the head of the rivet after being pulled. This results in the stem shaft transcending across seam where the two metals are joined and offer additional strength for the rivet especially in shear.

This is why you will see that the Cherry "N" rivets and the "Q" rivets have virtually the same strength rating in tension, but the "Q" is almost double in strength in shear.

Here is a quick test I did comparing the AVEX 1610-0410 rivets with the LP4-3 rivets that vans sells.

The strength of the AVEX 1610 series is well advertized but I have not been able to find the strength of the LP rivets. (Scott if you are reading is that something you can share?)

http://www.halie.com/o1f.jpg

[charosenz]

I thought I would share some pics of the beginning of the fabrication of the belly scoop. It will be mostly 0.032 - 2024-T3 sheet aluminum. Something I am comfortable working with.

The angle aluminum 0.63 6061-T6 angle that will be rivets to the bottom of the belly of the plane.

http://www.halie.com/scale/70/o15.jpg

And a pic of the side panel that will be screwed into the angle aluminum at the top. (the blue color on the aluminum sheet a the protective plastic coating).

http://www.halie.com/scale/70/o1F.jpg

[John-G]

The strength of the AVEX 1610 series is well advertized but I have not been able to find the strength of the LP rivets.

Charlie - The LP4-3 rivets on my RV-12 are manufactured by Gesipa and are the PolyGrip - MultiGrip series. According to factory specifications from the Gesipa catalog .... Shear =162 lbs. Tensile = 236 lbs.

Have been following your progress and really enjoy reading about your build.

Happy building,

[rv6ejguy]

Good to see this part coming along.

[charosenz]

Thanks for the reply. I have read they are Gesipia rivets too but just not sure.
I prefer to get them from Vans..... The numbers you shared are fairly consistent with most pulled rivets. Glad you are enjoying the build. I believe there are a fair number of lurkers out there, more coming out out of the shadows all the time. I work hard to keep this thread a fun and enjoyable experience where everyone is welcome to ask questions and make suggestions as long as they are kind and respectful.

[charosenz]

Good to see this part coming along.

Thanks. Not nearly as beautifully as your hand crafted scoop with everything perfectly faired in so nicely, but hey, I feel mine will work well. We shall see. I am anxious to make some progress but my day job is about 60 plus work hours back to back and no way to get out from under it.

Oh well it will happen...

Thanks to everyone who is watching and posting Great number of views and posts on this thread.

Lots more coming soon as I retire in 2 weeks and then i'll be building full time. !!!! Yeee haaaa.

[charosenz]

Just a quite new pic on more of the angle aluminum supports that will eventually hold the side panels of the scoop.

For those who have built a sheet metal airframe like an RV you will know that you will have to cut notices to notches on one side of the angle to get it to confirm to a single plane surface. Which is all that I had to do to notch the angle pieces for the front sides of the scoop that are forward of the radiator. But when it came to the angles for the aft section of supporting angles I had to notch both the side against the bell (to conform nicely to the curve for inlet an outlet boundary airflow But unlike the front, I also had to cut a few notices on the lower legs of the angles so they would conform nicely with the upward shape of the bottom of the belly. It is a bit hard to see but honestly, it was easy to do. I chose notches at roughly 2" spacing.

http://www.halie.com/o1D.jpg

Hope this makes sense, and if not feel free to ask questions.

I hop to be out there drilling and bending much more soon.

Charlie

[rv7charlie]

One never has enough tools....

https://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?dir=asc&order=EAScore%2Cf%2CEAFeatured+Weight%2Cf%2CSale+R ank%2Cf&q=stretcher+shrinker

[charosenz]

One never has enough tools....

https://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?dir=asc&order=EAScore%2Cf%2CEAFeatured+Weight%2Cf%2CSale+R ank%2Cf&q=stretcher+shrinker

Good tip! I have the hand held flute version which works well for me for metal thinner than .063. If I had to do much bending to do I could justify the ones in the link real easy...... But I have to say I don't know much about how these HF versions really work. I suspect if you did not have a whole lot to do they would be fine. At least that is my experience using HF tools.

Thanks

Charlie

[charosenz]

Just an update. I made a little progress on the belly scoop. There are two pics below. One of the scoop from the side and one from the front. The odd blue color is just protective plastic sheeting on the aluminum. As you can see it is still in the cleco stage, but at least it is progress. Astute viewers will notice the front opening is offset one inch to the left. This is to avoid the exhaust that will eventually exit the right side of the cowl.

http://www.halie.com/o8Y.jpg


http://www.halie.com/o8R.jpg

[charosenz]

folks,

In case anyone wonders why I have not posted in while, its only because I have been on vacation.

I am anxious to get back on the project but it will be several more days.

Charlie

[charosenz]

While I have used high octane unleaded fuel in my project, I know there will come a day when I am flying that I will occasionally have to use 100LL.

One downside is that leaded fuel will eventually foul an O2 sensor.

So I would be curious to hear from anyone who has used 100LL with an O2 sensor the following questions:

1) How long before the O2 sensor starts having problems.
2) How will you know when it starts to go "bad"?
3) Is your experience based on the older narrow band sensor or the newer wide band sensor?

Charlie

[jcaplins]

While I have used high octane unleaded fuel in my project, I know there will come a day when I am flying that I will occasionally have to use 100LL.

One downside is that leaded fuel will eventually foul an O2 sensor.

So I would be curious to hear from anyone who has used 100LL with an O2 sensor the following questions:

1) How long before the O2 sensor starts having problems.
2) How will you know when it starts to go "bad"?
3) Is your experience based on the older narrow band sensor or the newer wide band sensor?

Charlie

I've gotten anywhere from 10 to 50 hours on the Bosch 4.7 wideband o2 sensors when using leaded fuel. (Also using decalin additive)

I've switched to the better Bosch 4.9 sensors but have not used them with leaded fuel yet.

I use multiple o2 sensors and if I see the sensors not matching or if my mixture knob settings is not normal, then I know something is up with the sensors. I've also had a sensor always read 21:1, so that one failed.

I've also found that having the o2 sensor close the the cylinder head exhaust port yielded erratic and inaccurate readings. I believe the we're running hotter than they should. I've moved my sensors about 20" downstream now and seem to be working pretty good.

[charosenz]

I've gotten anywhere from 10 to 50 hours on the Bosch 4.7 wideband o2 sensors when using leaded fuel. (Also using decalin additive)

I've switched to the better Bosch 4.9 sensors but have not used them with leaded fuel yet.

I use multiple o2 sensors and if I see the sensors not matching or if my mixture knob settings is not normal, then I know something is up with the sensors. I've also had a sensor always read 21:1, so that one failed.

I've also found that having the o2 sensor close the the cylinder head exhaust port yielded erratic and inaccurate readings. I believe the we're running hotter than they should. I've moved my sensors about 20" downstream now and seem to be working pretty good.

Jeff, That is super helpful; just what I needed to know. I did make the switch to the 4.9 bosch unit too, along with a PLX multi-gauge, which I like very much. I have this tied in to the SDS display too.

I do have mine quite close to the turbo exit and I suspect you are spot on about the temps. I will see if I can gain some distance with the final exhaust design when I get to that stage.

Thanks again.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Now that I got my shipment of tubes and elbows, I roughed in the coolant tubes in a path that I think will work well for my set up. The aluminum tube is 1.25" OD 6061T6 that is 0.062" wall. The elbows are 4 ply silicone. If you look close you will see a dark anodized "joiner" at the top of both the cool side and the hot side tubes. Each of these has a 0.125" NPT temp sensor for monitoring.

Notice the tubes go down at the firewall and then enter the radiator scoop where they will eventually connect to the radiator. The second picture is a close up of the route near the firewall.

While it is not particularly necessary, I put a bead of JB Weld on the ends of the tubes to help keep the silicone fittings from slipping off. Works great.

http://www.halie.com/scale/15/o8h.jpg

http://www.halie.com/o8O.jpg

http://www.halie.com/scale/75/o83.jpg

[rv7charlie]

You can make a pretty effective beading tool for larger tubing like that with a couple of AN-3 bolts (actually, 3/16"; I'm too cheap to waste AN bolts), a grinder, and your hand rivet squeezer.

[charosenz]

You can make a pretty effective beading tool for larger tubing like that with a couple of AN-3 bolts (actually, 3/16"; I'm too cheap to waste AN bolts), a grinder, and your hand rivet squeezer.

Charlie,

Another way to skin the cat so-to-speak; thanks for sharing.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

I'm not familiar with molded silicone elbows - they really look nice. I guess hose clamps are still needed?

[DanH]

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/ear-013erl

[charosenz]

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/ear-013erl

Dan, Thanks for sharing the link. I did not have good luck with that tool for this tube. I suspect it may work better on thinner walled tube. But it is good to have in your toolbox.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I'm not familiar with molded silicone elbows - they really look nice. I guess hose clamps are still needed?

John,

Yes I should have noted that when the final lay out of the pipes is completed all elbow will be band-clamped on the aluminum tubes and there will be cushion clamps used to secure the pipe firmly in place, against other stronger structures.

Silicone has been around several years but was not used too widely until the costs started coming down making it competitive with the more common EPDM hose. I like it when it comes to basic 45 and 90 joints. It is more flexible and very good choice for coolant. But they cannot be used for oil or fuel.

[Piper J3]

Charlie

How soon do you think before powering the engine on the airframe?

Installation looks really clean and well thought out.

My compliments sir...

[charosenz]

Charlie

How soon do you think before powering the engine on the airframe?

Installation looks really clean and well thought out.

My compliments sir...

Jim,

Thank you for the kind words.

It is funny that you asked about this. I have made that my next milestone (to run the engine on the airframe), and it is hard at times not to work on other things that are not necessary to accomplish that goal. But..... I hope to create some heat with the engine on the airframe in about a month. Of course I do not have the wings on the fuse in my shop at home, so there will be a bit of a challenge getting fuel to the engine, but I have a portable fuel tank that I used before so I suspect I will just use that.

Major steps to accomplish this are:

1) Finish the coolant tubes to the radiator.
2) Hook up all the wiring/sensors and route it to the gauges in the instrument panel.
3) Fab a temp fuel delivery system
4) Fab a throttle cable to the newly reconfigured throttlebody.

It does not sound like much but the wiring is the most time consuming for me. Spending time on my back in the fuse with my head on the rudder pedals is just a pain. Not that I am complaining...well sort of....

The good news is that this engine has a single exhaust port which is really nice and makes it very simple for building an exhaust. Ill run it first without the turbo, and add that later. Plus I made my exhaust flange to take a universal ring flange so that too makes it easy to take on and off and rotate as needed to clear things.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Would it be better to run the engine with the wings on to absorb vibration?

[jcaplins]

Would it be better to run the engine with the wings on to absorb vibration?

Ha ha... It's not a Lycoming!

(somewhat kidding, and somewhat not.)

[charosenz]

Would it be better to run the engine with the wings on to absorb vibration?

Jim,

The engine is extremely smooth and there is virtually no vibration. But.....with the prop on it at high RPM there is a lot of torque roll that I do have to manage. When I had it on the test stand that was bilt with 2x6" that were 48" apart, I did have to add 6' outrigger when I did hard pulls at 5000 RPM with the prop on it, as it actually started to rock the engine stand (slightly). And as you can bet I also had to tie it to a large UTV to keep it help back. But Vibration, really none.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I had to send the radiator back to the shop to have a pin hole filled.

It gave me a chance to start getting serious about installing the engine wiring.

One point that I had struggled with in the past (may be some out there have too) is how to label thin wires, esp if the terminal is already on the wire?

One option that works well for me is to take a short length of flexible 1/8th PE tubing (the kind at the aviation isle at Home Depot) to give the label something large to wrap around and then cover both with clear shrink tube.

On important benefit is that you can cut the PE tubing lengthwise if the terminal is already on the wire, then slip the label in between the 1/8th PE and the shrink wrap. make sure to cut the clear shrink wrap just a bit longer than the PE tubing so it will shrink down around the PE and the label to hold it all in place.

Here is a pick of the finished product, and that short section of PE next to it.

http://www.halie.com/o85.jpg

You can buy cheap label makers on amazong for less than $30.

[charosenz]

I suspect I am not alone with struggling to find room for all the electrical components that need to be installed. Even more difficult is finding a way to make it secure, but accessible. One way that I have seen others do is to build a tray under the sub panel that can be removed, hinged, or even slide out on rollers.

Here is what I came up with. It is a panel that has a hinge at the back, so the majority of it can be unbolted so the tray can swing down in front of the rudder pedals for "easier" access. I do like it but i also struggle with esome interference with the throttle cable. Nothing that I cannot work around.

http://www.halie.com/o8J.jpg

The next picture is of the tray swung up and bolted in to place.

http://www.halie.com/o8p.jpg

Notice the 0.032 stiffners I added to the bottom just to give it some strength and rigidity.

Disregard the loose random break lines. Those qualify as a yet to be done project....and.....wait until you see the birds nest of wires that I get to clean up!

Charlie

[charosenz]

One of the questions I get asked the most is what modifications that I had to do to be able to make the engine work in the airplane. Most of the questions end up being related to how the mount attaches to the engine. So I created a video to cover a few of the highlights and I posted it on Youtube. The link is below.

One thing that I want to add is that did not modify the engine itself. I think Honda got that part right. Probably the only exception is the VTC spool valve. This device is what varies the timing of the intake valve. In the car, Honda has the PCM turn the oil control valve on an off which allows it to use the emissions friendly profile cam and then when it senses a demand for power, it flows oil over in the intake rocker arms so they utilize the Hight Output profiled came lobes. I have it set to run in the "high out put" mode all the time. This was simply a matter of energizing the oil control valve so the oil pressure engages intake rocker arms so the use the high output profile cam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTseMbFHNlI

Charlie

[charosenz]

Why don't you just use the Honda PCM/ECU?

I do get this questions a lot. The OEM PCM has a lot going on inside, and it requires a lot more sensor input than what I need or want. For example, it is used to seeing Transmission activity, Vehicle Speed, and lots of emissions data like EGT, EVAP, Catalytic Converters info and much more.

So why not use an aftermarket ECU programmer. Well aside from the fact that I am super happy with SDSEFI, there are other aftermarket PCM and PCM programming tools. I have talk with the folks at Hondata, Ktuner, Motec, Link and more. Some of these are viable options, especially if you use a port injected engine, and not a late model GDI (gas direct injection).

If you are considering an aftermarket PCM/Programmer and you are not familiar with them, get some advice from an experience programmer and make sure they know your "unique off road" machine will not have a lot of the typical sensor data. Some sensors can be "turned off" Others cannot. MOTEC is the leading automotive standalone PCM but they are expensive. They start at $4k and go up much higher.

One of the more out-of-the-box thinkers said that most of these engines have cousins who do duty as marine engines. Yes. Very true, in fact the Honda K24, one of the most venerable honda engines has been doing just that for over 15 years. There is some very sound logic in considering this route. While some of the engines do have some changes in the design from their land based siblings, now days it is rare, and the changes are usually more beneficial to an aviation adaptation to boot. A marine PCM would not be looking for Transmission and speed data. But they do look for other controls and I am not familiar with their design layout. But the Honda Marine BF150A has excellent specs and the PCM wiring schematic is readily available on line - its even included in the owners manual. So the theory for those of you who are not afraid to innovative, you could use a BF150A Marine PCM on a land based K24Z series as it would not be required to look for transmission data etc. But you would still need an after market re programmer like Hondata, or Motec and it might be possible. For me, I am going to stick with SDSEFI because it is proven and the support is great. The only downside is that, currently, SDS does not support GDI and all but one Honda (the R18) is not GDI. So it you are looking to get one of the more late model Honda for your rocket ship. Do your homework!

My project is looking good. I have had my head (feet, arms, back) deep in to the electrical work. Nothing fun to report, other than it is going well.

On a side note. This thread passed the 50,000 views milestone last week! I have to admit that is a big number. Surprising too. There are not a lot of folks who comment, and I suspect there are quite a few lurkers who for various reason don't want to comment. If, by chance, it is because of ridicule from other members of VAF that would be a shame. I hope that is not the case. Regardless, as long as people seem interested, I will post. I realize this is not the type of venture than most builders would want to tackle, but certainly by the viewers, it is certainly something people are interested in reading about. For me it is what I enjoy the most. Experimental aviation does include the forward part of the firewall too!

Let me know if you have question, comments, or respectful disagreements, all welcome.

Good flying to you all.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Excellent Charlie. Keep crimping wires...

[charosenz]

Just up date on the progress.

I have the wiring from the FWF back through the sub panel and I have a good start on the panel...

Here is a pic below. When it comes to the engine instruments you will see "traditional" gauges. I guess I am a bit old fashioned that way. The "Blank" area in the middle of the panel will be an IPAD probably running forflight.

http://www.halie.com/ofL.jpg

Also, one thing I found that I really like, is a USA made, water proof, re-settable master breaker, and only $26 bucks!

Here is a link to that breaker. https://spemco.com/175-s0-090-2-mechanical-products-90-amp-manual-circuit-breaker-surface-mount/

I have this mounted on the subpanel.

http://www.halie.com/scale/25/ofc.jpg

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Charlie

It surprises me that you are going with EFIS/EMS in order to log data on engine performance. It would seem to be a huge benefit during early shakedown flights and maintenance in general...

[charosenz]

Jim,

I (am pretty sure I) can add data logging with SDS engine controller and I might do that if all proceeds well. But honestly, when it comes down to glancing at an digital display vs gauges, I really just prefer gauges.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

EM-5 ECUs can data log, earlier ECUs can't.

[charosenz]

Ross,

Thanks for confirming that, I do have a EM5F. It definitely interests me. I will do some research, or if if you have time, feel free to share the link that shows the data logging features.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

http://sdsefi.com/data.htm

[charosenz]

Ross,

Very nice, very complete system. Thanks for the link.

Charlie

[charosenz]

As I progress with the wiring of the panel I learned the Oil Pressure switch is a "NC" Normally Closed switch. Which means that the contacts are closed thereby providing a circuit (power) - unless - there is oil pressure, the opposite of what I need. Since I want to use this to run my Hobbs I need to reverse it. I need it to be a "NO" Normally Open switch.

I could plumbed an after market NO switch but since there are two oil pressure ports on this engine it made sense to me to use one. Oddly, one is BPST thread and the other is an "O" ring 10mm thread.

So I decided to use a common 5 post relay to convert this from a "NC" circuit to operate as a "NO" switch. Thereby providing power to the Hobbs only when there is oil pressure.

http://www.halie.com/scales/80/ofZ.jpg

Charlie

[rv7charlie]

I assume you simplified the drawing; not showing the Hobbs system being wired after your master contactor. As drawn, the relay is a parasitic drain on the battery when the engine isn't running.

[charosenz]

Charlie,

Yes. Thanks, an important to aspect to note.

(the other) Charlie

[Mike S]

Why not change out the oil pressure switch to a NO one?

[charosenz]

Mike,

You would think that would be easy. So far I have ordered two and neither were the correct units. One came with NPT threads, event thought it was advertised as 10mm (which is what I need). The other was 10mm but with 1.0TP and I need 1.25TP. I do have a 3rd one on order, so we'll see.....

In the mean time I decided to wire up the cross-over relay to get the job done.

Then I thought, what the heck, I'll share it thinking someone may find some value it in it, if not for this purpose, may be for another application.

....and in case some may wonder about just installing an oil manifold, I thought about that too, and may in fact do that too, but this relay was a bit easier for now.....

Charlie

[skylor]

Deleted. I see you're looking specifically for a switch with a 10mm thread...

Skylor

[charosenz]

While I previously said 87 was not used, I should have mentioned the option of using post 87 for a low oil pressure warning light. The 87A in this case works as the NO line, 87 will be the opposite, it will be NC, hence when oil pressure is lost, this leg will close and energize the warning light. You can buy 1/2" very bright to install in your panel in a variety of placed.

Here are the ones I like and use...

https://spemco.com/red-round-12-volt-led-indicator-light-spade-terminals-1092qd1-12v/

http://www.halie.com/scale/40/of0.jpg

They come in a variety of colors

[charosenz]

I decided to update the drawing. I added the master contactor that RV7 Charlie mentioned. I also added the low oil pressure light leg off post/terminal 87 on the relay.

When using warning lights, it is also good to add a "push to test" button so you can push it to ensure the lights themselves are functional as a preflight duty.

http://www.halie.com/scale/65/ofX.jpg

[charosenz]

Just over a month ago, someone asked when I could have the engine running on the airframe. Largely the hold up was building the panel. At least to the extent that it included the necessary gauges to run the engine.

Well I installed the panel today. It took a bit longer than I had anticipated but I am happy with the results.

Here is a pic of it installed.

http://www.halie.com/ofb.jpg

Some of you will be surprised to see analog gauges on a current panel. When it comes to monitoring the engine systems I like gauges. Just me.

But when it comes to navigation, well that will be glass. That is why you see a fairly large blank area on the left. I am leaning on installing an IPAD and running foreflight for navigation.

I know I mentioned the "CPC" circular wire connectors previously, and I thought I would include a pic of those. They are hard mounted in the sub panel. I ended up using 3 9 pin connectors. This makes installing the panel, or upgrading it very easy. These connectors are readily available from Mouser, or DigiKey, or Ebay. They take wire anywhere from 22ga up to 14 ga. I did end up having to use one full sized Universal Mate-n-lock connector because my starter switch wire was 12ga and the panel feed line was 10 ga.

You will notice a white colored paper above each CPC connector. This is a list of what each terminal (wire) is as well as a diagram of the pins.

http://www.halie.com/oft.jpg

I suspect it will be a more than a week before I actually start the engine. I do have a bit of coolant plumbing to finalize and secure some loose wires, etc.

Feel free to ask questions.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

You're going to start the engine during AirVenture week - very appropriate...

[DanH]

You will notice a white colored paper above each CPC connector. This is a list of what each terminal (wire) is as well as a diagram of the pins.

http://www.halie.com/oft.jpg

That is a fine idea. Nicely done too.

[rv6ejguy]

That saves getting out a book and crawling up under there with it a few years down the road trouble shooting something. Good stuff Charlie.

[charosenz]

That is a fine idea. Nicely done too.

Thanks Dan, I know you have a lot of experience and coming from you is appreciated.

That saves getting out a book and crawling up under there with it a few years down the road trouble shooting something. Good stuff Charlie.

Ross, funny you should mention that. Besides the fact I am not getting any younger, or skinnier, the thought of crawling on my back to look up at those wires behind the subpanel months or years later is not something I would look forward to.

But I actually do have several unassigned pairs of wires that transit the firewall that are stubbed off back there for use later. I probably should bring a few of them forward in to a pin on a connector before they get lost back there.

I am contemplating adding a "Air Temp" sensor in the cowling, more for my sense of curiosity but also as a "Canary" to catch something getting hot up there..... Maybe a Pressure Sender on the coolant system too. Just curious more than anything.....

Charlie

[charosenz]

You're going to start the engine during AirVenture week - very appropriate...

Well....Lets Hope! Good thought(about OSH). Thanks for the encouragement.

Charlie

[Mike S]

Maybe a Pressure Sender on the coolant system too.



This is a good idea, with the belly radiator you will not easily see any indication of failure of coolant system integrity.

[charosenz]

I have made quite a bit of progress getting things ready to run.

Besides installing the panel, I installed the Throttle cable to the TB. Fortunately it worked out quite well.

Of course I had to match the travel of the throttle cable to be appropriate with the rotation of the TB butterfly plate so it was close while the knob was pulled and precisely wide open relative to the airflow while the cable was pushed all the way in.

There was certainly a bit of trial and error. Fortunately the throttle arm has several holes on the arm which was very valuable in matching the rotation (of the throttle body plate) to the throttle cable travel ratio. I hope that makes sense, if you have questions let me know.

This is an after market TB. I think it is 70mm. The OEM is a non-mechanical unit which added complexity that just did not make sense to use.

On a side note, the vacuum ports/tubes on the TB have not been capped yet, but will be before runup.

http://www.halie.com/ofe.jpg

Other tasks completed are:

1) Putting on a new (better} bypass hose.
2) Installing the PSRU (prop gearbox).
3) Wiring the various sensors. I decided to add another water temp sensor as well as a water pressure sensor.
4) Wired up the PSRU oil temp sensor
5) I added coolant.
6) Added the oil pressure sender for the HOBBS.

I am not going to bore you with the "to do" list, but it really is not bad.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I did my first run up of the engine on the airframe. It worked great. (and made it during OSK week!)

Here is a very short video.

https://youtu.be/VWT8bYB8tdM

With no prop on it yet, it quickly ran up to 4000 rpm with very little throttle movement. I will have to get used to that. I suspect it will work through those RPMs a bit more gradually with a prop.

I am surprised to see no pressure on the coolant system, even though I pushed it up to 230 degrees. This was easy to do with no air through the radiator at all, it did not take too long to get up to temp at 4000 rpm. I am suspicious the pressure gauge is not accurate at these low settings. I have to do more bench testing. I may need to find a more sensitive low pressure gauge and sender.

I have 3 water temp senders. One dedicated to the ECU. One on the engine outlet and one on the inlet. Right now I am running without a thermostat. I certainly do not need any help getting the engine up to running temp.

The PSRU temps were quite low, I think around 160F. But again with no prop that is probably about right.

You will notice some pretty shabby loose wiring if you look close. This will all change soon, now that I have the engine up and running again. I just did not want to spend a lot of time making is sanitary if things did not go well and more changes had to be made.

Many of you have PM me with support and comments and I appreciate that. One person asked about support for the throttle cable. I am not sure how well that came through with the picture, but I am using the stainless steel eyeball to capture the cable as it passes through the firewall. This allows the cable to be free to rotate about the (Z?) axis while still keeping the exterior of the cable very secure from moving in or out. I got this one from ACS Aircraft Spruce.

I have the plane on dolly's so I can push it around in my shop at home. I need to secure these before adding the prop. It would not be good to get airborne in my 60 foot parking lot. That would be a real bad idea.

I am not sure what else to share. Let me know if you have questions or comments for the good of the order so to speak.

P.S. You will see in the video I have an external fuel tank (jerry can) with fuel delivery system that is a stand alone unit. Since the fuel tanks are normally in the wings, and of course they are in the rafters of the shop, i just rigged up a fuel tank, pressure sender, and fuel pressure regulator and fuel pump on a roll cart. All the wiring is quickly attached using those CPC connectors and of course the Honda fuel rail is OEM quick disconnet fitting anyway so fuel hose connection is literally, well, a snap. Hope that all makes senses.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

Congrats Charlie. Runs really nice.

The gearbox temps sound a bit high with no load though, keep an eye on those with the prop in place.

Always good to verify the accuracy of temp and pressure gauges. Erroneous readings can lead you down the wrong path. Coolant pressure may not always follow what you think, you can have negative pressure under certain running conditions.

[Tomcat RV4]

Charlie, sounds like great progress,what year body didy you use, as my 2013 is
electric throttle. Thanks Tom (Tomcatrv4)

[charosenz]

Congrats Charlie. Runs really nice.

The gearbox temps sound a bit high with no load though, keep an eye on those with the prop in place.

Always good to verify the accuracy of temp and pressure gauges. Erroneous readings can lead you down the wrong path. Coolant pressure may not always follow what you think, you can have negative pressure under certain running conditions.

Ross,

Thank you. Yes, I agree on the sensors. I did quite a bit of bench testing with the temp sensors and they were pretty accurate. But if things don't look right I will check them again before chasing that rabbit.

As far as the coolant pressure goes, that is one that I plan to change. I just ordered a manual (direct 1/8 line) gauge that I plan to install in the feed line to the header tank. I want to make sure I completely know what is going on there and if that the cheap cap that they make now days is working properly. I am concerned it is not, as the water in the overflow tank did not budge at all during the high temp run up.

I was actually thinking of using a MAP gauge just to be able to watch the suction side of the system, but those of course are not liquid filled and would not survive long with water/moisture getting in the port. I think once I get that new direct line gauge going things will become clear.

[charosenz]

Charlie, sounds like great progress,what year body didy you use, as my 2013 is
electric throttle. Thanks Tom (Tomcatrv4)

Tom,

Yes, I had the same electric TB on mine. I opted to swap it out for that Aftermarket TB you see in the picture so I could have direct cable control on the throttle. It was quite a simple change.

Thanks for the kind words.

Charlie

[Cirrus Man]

I'm installing a Viking 130 engine and need any help or advice that anyone has on safely installing and running the engine.

Currently I'm trying to find out if the standard RV-12 fuel system is a 45psi system?

[rv6ejguy]

The RV-12 fuel system was designed for low pressure- carbs.

[charosenz]

I'm installing a Viking 130 engine and need any help or advice that anyone has on safely installing and running the engine.

Currently I'm trying to find out if the standard RV-12 fuel system is a 45psi system?

Sounds like an interesting project, good luck to you.

The engine set up that I talk about in this thread does use a Viking PSRU but the engine, ECU, etc are not provided by Viking. So I am not sure I can be of much assistance.

Charlie

[BillL]

Congrats Charlie. Runs really nice.

The gearbox temps sound a bit high with no load though, keep an eye on those with the prop in place.

Always good to verify the accuracy of temp and pressure gauges. Erroneous readings can lead you down the wrong path. Coolant pressure may not always follow what you think, you can have negative pressure under certain running conditions.

The vid showed 110F for the PSRU, and 82F OAT, so not much rise for the temp on that box. It may depend on where the sensor is located.

Where is the coolant pressure measured? It is really dependent on top tank temp where partial pressure at temp is established. A cavitation test measuring temperature to the coolant pump is in order, then you can measure that temp as a leading indicator of cavitation and system cooling collapse. It should be done w/o a cap and with pure water. Blocking the radiator and running the engine at a relatively high speed - one appropriate to takeoff. It does not take a long time to test, so raising the temps then increasing engine speed would suffice. It is a basic liquid system performance evaluation. It is a good static test for any new installation.

[rv6ejguy]

The vid showed 110F for the PSRU, and 82F OAT, so not much rise for the temp on that box. It may depend on where the sensor is located.


Charlie said he saw 160F. Mine never gets this hot 3 hours into a flight.

With maybe 20ish hp going through it without a prop, this is hot in my experience if the probe is in the oil.

[charosenz]

I will watch that PSRU temp closer on the next run up to try to get a firm grasp of that temp. (I was really more focused on the water temp.) The PSRU temp sensor is at the top of the unit, as the manufacturer suggests. I would suspect it is being splashed with oil that is slung off the top gear, but really that is just my guess based on the location.

My next step is to install that mechanical water pressure gauge. While it wont measure the suction that does occur like Ross said, it will tell me if the system is developing pressure and whether or not the cap is working as it should. I believe that when I hit 212F that I should have seen a rise in the overflow tank as the cap opened. But there was no rise in the level of the overflow tank. Ummm.... The gauge I am using now is a 0-90 psi gauge I had on the shelf. The mechanical one is liquid filled 0-15 psi, which should give me more accurate readings.

Like Bill said there may be air pockets causing cavitation at the pump but Since all 3 sensors are within 10 degrees of each other at any given time my guess is that the flow is probably doing OK. One is on the exit of the head, another at the inlet thermostat housing and the other just prior to the radiator.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I did more extensive run up today. I ran it for about 4 minuts at 2000, and at 3000 and at 4000RPM.

I did some quick videos of the testing. My apologies to Ross. When I said the PSRU temp was 160F I probably misspoke, as I verified today it was only about 104f after several minutes at 4000rpm. By the way. My senses tells me the engine is the smoothest, and happiest at 4000rpm. I think you will agree when you hear it run on the video. It is also super smooth between 1000rpm and 2000rpm. There is some minor vibration between 2000 and about 3200 rpm. Nothing scientific at all. Just a seat of the pants interpretation.

Here is a 33 second clip at 4000rpm.

https://youtu.be/V1DIdcTlTz0


The good news is that oil pressure gauge I have serving as my temporary coolant pressure gauge actually got up to 11psi. You will see it in the video. The part that still seems odd to me is that the overflo coolant did not rise. So I suspect the cap is something higher than 11psi. I wish it was about 5 psi.

All three coolant sensors are typically with 10-12 degrees of each other.

Of course the real testing will begin when I put a prop back on and load up the engine. I need to build some real good chocks for that.

If that goes well I will then put the turbo back on.

[charosenz]

I did more testing for several minutes each at 2,000, 3,000, and 4000 RPM.

My apologies to Ross when I said the PSRU temp got up to 160F I must have been mistaken, as it never got above 103F today. My mistake.

The good news is that the oil pressure gauge you will see in the video that is actually temporarily serving as my coolant pressure gauge got up to 11 psi. The overflow tank still did not rise, so I suspect the cap is at least an 11 psi ca. I wish it was more like 5 psi.

Here is the link to the new run up to 4000rpm. Its only 33 seconds.

https://youtu.be/V1DIdcTlTz0

All three coolant sensors were usually within 10-12 degrees of each other at all times.

The engine seems the smoothest at 3800-4100. It settles down in to a very sweet hummmm. Just my seat of the pants feel. You may also get that impression when you watch the video.

Again, I do not have the prop on the plan so it is really not working at all. The radiator has zero flow over it as well.

Once I get sometime to pull the panel and change out that faulty volt gauge and add the mechanical coolant pressure gauge Ill build some sterdy chocks and start testing with the old prop I have. See what things look like at 4500 rpm with 20 degrees pitch on the prop.

I am also going to watch the reference voltage on the GM map sensor I have and see it compares to the EOM integral map sensor. If I can use the OEM one, it makes plubming the MAP lines much easier. It will be interesting to see if it either of them gets up to 5.0v at 25-30 inches.....if so Ill have to go to a 2 bar map sensor when I start adding boost. but that will probably be some tweaking on the programming in the ECU. Oh well, that is actually fun to me.

Charlie

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

Yes, these temps are in line and it sounds super smooth in the vid.

[Piper J3]

I just got back from OSH and see I missed the intial engine start.

Congratulations on this accomplishment. I'm following your efforts with keen interest.

Just a thought... sometimes when building an airplane a pilot lets his air skills deminish and then when the time comes to fly new creation the pilot may not be up to the task. With your engine now running on the airframe it may be time to tune-up and polish the pilot. It would be good to have recent time in same model prior to fist flight so memory items, sight picture, etc. become very familiar and attention can be focused on new engine while flying performace of airplane remains safe.

[charosenz]

I just got back from OSH and see I missed the intial engine start.

Congratulations on this accomplishment. I'm following your efforts with keen interest.

Just a thought... sometimes when building an airplane a pilot lets his air skills deminish and then when the time comes to fly new creation the pilot may not be up to the task. With your engine now running on the airframe it may be time to tune-up and polish the pilot. It would be good to have recent time in same model prior to fist flight so memory items, sight picture, etc. become very familiar and attention can be focused on new engine while flying performace of airplane remains safe.

Jim (sorry I first wrote Bill).

That is funny that you mentioned getting current. My wife just said the same thing tonight! I absolutely am going to do that. I have been putting it but I am getting closer to that point. I do need to get a few more things done before I feel I can commit to flying part of this hobby but it is not too far off.

[charosenz]

Well I installed my "test" prop. It is a used 68" (corrected typo was 60) warp drive prop that I bought for a very good price. (I love the prop and I wished they may a higher HP version I would buy it in a minute.)

I ran it up to 4000 RPM and got a very good surprise. While I was only pulling 20-25 inches of MAP, I could not get it warmer than about 175 degrees. I was very surprised that the prop wash provided that much cooling effect on the radiator. I do not have the plenum around the radiator. Before, with no prop on it; no load, no cooling prop wash, the coolant temp would get up to 230F in about 10 -15 minutes. I have the prop at max pitch, 20.5 degrees. I can't make it work any harder. I the last time I had it running on the test stand, 5000 RPM would get me close to 30" MAP. In the end, I would like to see 40" - 45" of MAP at 4500-4800 RPM with the turbo on it.

I need a bigger prop. I just started to look at other props. I do have a limited budget so I am looking at a 72" two bladed whirlwind, and the 3 bladed 72"-74" IVO Magnum and the 72" DUC Flash-R.

I think with a 72" or 74" prop, especially if it was a 3 blade, I would see 40+" at 4500 which I believe translates to an output of approximately 170+HP at that speed.

Comments welcome.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Jim (sorry I first wrote Bill).

That is funny that you mentioned getting current. My wife just said the same thing tonight!

Smart woman there....

[charosenz]

I ran the engine with the prop on it up to 30" MAP which was 4700-4800RPM. Of course since I do not have the turbo on it right now, this was the limit for this engine. I also had installed the thermostat to see how that would change the temps.

Here are some notes. Please know these are rough notes and may not be spot on. It is a bit harry to be running at that RPM on a ground test tethered to my truck. Note taking was not my priority during that 6-7 minute period at that RPM.

My notes....engine ran up to 4800 RPM. 30 in of manifold at 4800 RPM. Water coolant temperature at 225F on hot side of system, and after about 6-8 minutes the temps were rising fast enough that I needed to throttle back.
This is no suprise to me considered we were on the ground. Water temperature on cool side 209. At 4000 RPM I saw 24 in manifold pressure. PSRU temperature 110 -115 degrees at 4500 RPM. OAT was about 76F. Throttle was at 95% at 4800 RPM. Increase throttle did not increase RPM after 4700-4800 RPM.

The Thermostat did its job but I am not convinced it is really a benefit, except for maybe in the very coldest period of the year. The temps without the thermostat are closer on the hot and cold side and lower over all. It is important to know that this is all based on ground run up with no radiator shroud. Flight with a shroud, will be completely different.

I believe that with my current set up I could run at about 22"-25" of MAP and the system would run all day with no problems of over heating.

The Prop is a 68" WARP drive 3 blade tapered tip.

Here is a link to the run up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXo-FL7-Xzw

I am very happy with these numbers. My plan is to get a 72" prop to get the static "limit" down to about 3800, then add turbo to be able to get about 40" at 4500-4800 RPM. I really just don't like working the PSRU faster than that. That is not a limit the manufacturer has, it is just me.

The engine is probably putting out about 130-145 HP at 30". I believe 5-7 lbs of boost will get me close to the 160-170HP I desire. Of course it will also help considerably at higher altitudes.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I have been out of state for a few weeks which is why I have not been posting the progress of the project.

At this point I can not be happier with the performance of this engine set up.

The last challenge I had to overcome was with the cooling problems. I believe that most of the high temps I saw were caused by a poor fitting radiator cap. It was not properly pressurizing the system. I installed a mechanical 15 PSI pressure gauge in the panel and learned a lot about how the cooling system was working. In short things work very well. I have to run the engine over 22 inches MAP before it overheats now and the cap releases between 10-15 lbs which seems to be a good pressure. I am not entirely happy with the cheap feel of this radiator cap but it is working well. (keep in mind this is all happening static on ground run ups and I am not flying it).

But I have to wait until I get a larger prop before I can load the engine more, especially to do testing with the T3/T4 turbo.

Another interesting thing is that I learned that LED gauges are great, in low light, but easily get washed out in direct sunlight, but LCD displays work great! LCD has sort of disappeared and are considered "outdated" technology but I am switching my LED gauges to LCD gauges so I can read them in sunlight. Which is another reason why I still like analog (steam) gauges.

The next step is to modify the cowl to fit the engine installation which is going to take me a few weeks (at least). I suspect that this part is a bit too off topic for this thread so I don't really plan to post on that part of the build. If you have questions feel free to ask, or PM.

I have ordered all the parts to install the dual Walbro 155LPH fuel pumps and that will be after or during the cowl mod.

Lots more to do! But all is well.

Charlie

[charosenz]

As I slave away with moding my cowling and remembering that I said I was not going to post about this, I got to thinking that anyone who may decide to venture off in to installing a "Alternative" engine will probably have to do some cowl modification, hence it makse sense to share a bit about this.....

I had to modify my cowling to fit this set up. I had built this cowl to fit a different engine set up. With the R18 Honda, it need to be dropped about 5/8 of an inch and lengthened about 1/2 an inch.

Looking at this photo you may think you see "bondo". Not the case. I use West Systems epoxy and lots of micro balloons with some sillica (cabosil). You will see green foam. This is what I call "flourist" foam that is readily available at any hobby or craft shop. Plus it is very easy to sand and shape. It is excellent and inexpensive when you want add volume and it is NOT structural. So for me it was an excellent choice to add 1/2" to the nose. Then cover with epoxy/micro.

http://www.halie.com/scale/65/o50.jpg

The next photo is a rough fit of the spinner. I have actually done a lot more filling and sanding after this, but it is coming along nicely.

http://www.halie.com/scale/65/o5X.jpg

There is a lot more work to do. I will be adding more to the lower cowl and sanding to the correct profile and then cover it all with a layer of glass before painting.

Feel free to ask questions if you want.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Just in case anyone thought I had been relaxing on some far away place - not the case at all! I have been slaving away building up the cowl to fit the engine/prop better.

Here are two photos of the progress. It needs more buffing and polishing but it did turn out fine with me.

http://www.halie.com/o5b.jpg

Here is one more...

http://www.halie.com/o5t.jpg

I will be glad when is done, fiberglass is certainly not my specialty, but I would rather do it myself and put up with all the cosmetic flaws than hire it done. To me that is what Experimental Aviation is all about.

I should get my new (72") prop in a few weeks and I am real anxious to do some testing with it....

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Getting close now. Remember to brush cobwebs off flying skills. A lot will be happening on first flights and pilot will need to be very familiar with flying the airframe while sorting engine info. Very interesting to follow this thread with approach and decision making involved.

[charosenz]

Jim,

I wish it was close. But honestly is not. I have probably at least 6 months to go. ...and quite a few non aviation tasks to work on.

But yes. I will get be proficient in type before the first flight.

Charlie

[charosenz]

While waiting on the new prop to arrive and I am working on a variety of small tasks. I have decided to make some changes in the turbo exhaust as well as beginning to upfit the pipes that will go from the turbo to the intercooler to the TB (Throttlebody).

Here are two photos of the new turbo down pipe. It will be attached to the Turbo with a V Band clamp and will have a M14x 1.5tp O2 sensor as well as a bayonet mount EGT probe.

http://www.halie.com/oFz.jpg


http://www.halie.com/oFI.jpg

There are a lot of wires and other pipes and tubes that are not yet connected. But over all, I do like the set up of the turnbo down pipe. I was going to bend and route it farther aft, but after more thought, it seems to make more sense to keep it simple. It is about 1" from the silicone coolant lines but I believe this can be protected with a cuff off the downpipe. I know many wrap their turbos and downpipes with ceramic wraps, but I have never been a fan of that, but I will consider it.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Maybe I missed in earlier post... is turbo for "normalizing" or "boost"?

[charosenz]

I plan to have it boost 5-7 lbs, (40-45 in Hg). The plan is to keep that level up to 10K. This is quite mild (less than half) compared to most boost pressures used on Hondas over all. This will put me somewhere in the neighborhood of 160-180HP. There are factors that may change this once I actually get to flying, but so far this is a conservative set up.

I was very happy with how my intercooler performed on the test stand but on the airframe will be a whole new ball game. Can't wait!!

I did rough in the intercooler today. It actually "sits" quite nicely between the engine and the firewall. I even have a few inches to get a scat duct in there from the front left cowl inlet. I think I will have to fabricate a plenum out of fiberglass and aluminum.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I am continuing to migrate engine systems and components over to the airframe that were functional on the test stand.

Below is a pic of my dual walbro fuel pump system.

http://www.halie.com/oFB.jpg

I am happy with the set up. For those who may not want to build this piece by piece SDS EFI has a dual pump system that is very compact unit.

I did get my prop today. Very excited to test the engine with this. Unfortunately things are in limbo until I get the fuel system functional and with another trip out of state soon, it may be awhile before I can test the prop.

Ill keep this thread updated as long as there seems to be interest. And since it past over 60k views, I think for now its worth sharing what I am doing.

Charlie

[Bavafa]

Excited about your progress, can't wait for the time you take it up.

With best wishes

[jcaplins]

I am continuing to migrate engine systems and components over to the airframe that were functional on the test stand.

Below is a pic of my dual walbro fuel pump system.

I am happy with the set up. For those who may not want to build this piece by piece SDS EFI has a dual pump system that is very compact unit.

I did get my prop today. Very excited to test the engine with this. Unfortunately things are in limbo until I get the fuel system functional and with another trip out of state soon, it may be awhile before I can test the prop.

Ill keep this thread updated as long as there seems to be interest. And since it past over 60k views, I think for now its worth sharing what I am doing.

Charlie

Making progress. Cool.

It looks like there are 2 fuel inputs; one with a filter (the black thing?) and one without. Are you running the return fuel straight back to the fuel pumps? if so, the prevailing wisdom is to run the fuel back to the tank. It's even suggested to run the return line in the tank far from the fuel pickup. This is primarily because the return fuel is warm/hot. I don't know how much of a difference it really makes, my return fuel dumps into the tank right above the pickup tube.

I'm also imagining having the return fuel going back to the fuel pumps would create a problem with regulating the fuel pressure. Fuel would be pumped to and sucked from the regulator, and maybe not suck from the tank.

(Just raising a concern; I don't mind being wrong.)

[charosenz]

Jeff,

Good to hear from you.

Comments and suggestion are always welcome. I am pretty familiar with the discussion and debate on the returns lines. While I hate to crack open that debate...here are are my thoughts.

I agree that most of the concerns regarding the return line usually is tied to two thoughts. One, like you mentioned is tied to concern about the temperature of the fuel. (which leads to the second concern). High pressure systems like this sees most of the return at idle. While I don't have hundreds of hours of testing on this, I can tell you that the return lines during my testing are not perceptibly warmer than the supply lines, and those, even in the hottest time of summer. The second and actually more common concern is "vapor lock". Many people do not understand that this is a concern for the suction side of the system and virtually a non-issue for the pressurized side of a fuel system. The risks associated with what is commonly called vapor lock are prevalent on a carburetor systems and especially older systems that have mechanical pumps with limited fuel flow, low pressure and long supply lines. The problem occurs when a particular system is unable to move the fuel due to being "stalled" (sometimes called cavitation) with air that that particular system is unable to handle, for a variety of reasons.

When I do my test runs I hook up the system with an external fuel tank. (I don't have wings mounted on the fuse). As you can imagine the lines are nothing but full of air - absolute worse case of risk of "vapor lock". Right?! it takes a few seconds for the air to pass the injectors and then it runs absolutely perfect.

Some even think the return lines are to allow bubbles to return to the tank - not realizing of course that once they pass the pump, the are a non issue. (in a relative sense).

Now, should we be mindful of the value of keeping air out of our supply lines, especially in low pressure carburetor systems. You bet. Will I continue to do testings as the systems evolves? Absolutely.

Sometimes we take information that is applicable to one kind of system and then believe that is applies to all systems even though they are significantly different and that appears to be happening on this topic as well.

In short. Yes, I have thought about it. I have read every tech article I can find and I am basing my decision on credible information, backed by testing.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and concerns.

P.S. On a somewhat humors note, I am tempted to put a schrader valve on the suction side and inject very low pressure air in to the system just to verify how it would handle. Any one want to take a $100 bet it handles it fine? I need lunch money.

Take care.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

The biggest concern would be if you run a tank dry, you'll have a lot of air in the system and it will take many seconds to process that through the injectors. The engine will be too lean to run. Maybe not a big deal with lots of altitude but would be down low.

Returning to the pump inlet has caused running issues on the dyno in one instance I can recall during a test.

Any air entrained, going through the pump gears is unfriendly to them.

Returning to the tanks is the safest and most proven. Worth considering IMO.

[charosenz]

The biggest concern would be if you run a tank dry, you'll have a lot of air in the system and it will take many seconds to process that through the injectors. The engine will be too lean to run. Maybe not a big deal with lots of altitude but would be down low.

Returning to the pump inlet has caused running issues on the dyno in one instance I can recall during a test.

Any air entrained, going through the pump gears is unfriendly to them.

Returning to the tanks is the safest and most proven. Worth considering IMO.

Ross,

Always I good to hear from you.

I should add that my comment about air in the system was certainly not to suggest that it is a good thing, and running a tank dry is definitely not good in any situation, IMHO (Although I have read folks who routinely do that before switching to a full tank - not my idea of good fuel management.)

I mentioned the part about my start ups with air in the line just to help people have a real world perspective and to understand in an unlikely chance an air bubble develops in a system like mine it is (IMHO) not going to cause vapor lock, like in the older low pressure systems.

My testing continues. While the system I had on the test stand was functionally similar, I have not done testing on this particular set up. I hope to get going on it very soon and I will post all my experience, good and bad.

I appreciate comments like yours and Jeff, even while they might be different from my plan they are respectful, and helpful to us all. Your knowledge and experience is something I respect.

Take care.

Charlie.

[charosenz]

Excited about your progress, can't wait for the time you take it up.

With best wishes

Me too! Thanks for the support. This is a very fun and challenging project. So far I am encouraged with the progress.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Below is a pic of my older 68" Warp Drive Prop that I used for testing, with the new 72" prop.

http://www.halie.com/oFO.jpg

There are a few things worth mentioning here. Notice the new prop hub. Much "beefier" than the older prop. Warp calls this their HP hub.

Second, notice that the 72" prop blades are full width cord the whole way out to the tip, as compared to the tapered blades on the 68".

Last, you may be wondering why I chose Warp Drives. Really several factors. One, they have been in business for decades with a very good reputation for support and reliability. I have always received great customer service in my dealings with them. That counts a lot to me. I also think the 3 blade 72" full cord set is going to be a good match for my project. They are competitively priced. This prop with stainless steel leading edge, HP hub, crush plate, and bolts and pitch protractor was less than $1700. While it would probably not be a good fit for a IO-360 LYC, I think its going to work out good for me.

I did a real short run up today but I ended up with a coolant issue so I was not able to run it long. I will post a follow up on that issue later.

Charlie

[charosenz]

In my last post I mentioned the cooling issue again.

I saw excessive high temps on my last short run up. I suspected that it was due to a rather large air bubble near the water pump.

I decided to take more caution on how I fill the coolant in the engine and after doing so I am back with the correct temps and function of the cooling system.

Below you should see a picture of the engine with two reinforced silicone tubes that point straight up in the air. These two tubes are temporarily attached to two ports that just happen to be at the ideal high point of the coolant system on this engine. It is important to note these are on both sides of the water pump and filling them and porting them ensures that the water pump is properly immersed in coolant. The one on the left that has a yellow arrow pointed to it is on the the top of the thermostat housing. The one on the right that has orange arrow pointed to it is on the coolant outlet of the cylinder head where the OEM water temp sensor used to be. (After the filling procedure I attach a a line over to the catch can on the firewall so it can evacuate any remaining air bubbles that may exist as the system is running. That line is marked by a green arrow and is not attached at the time the pic was take.

http://www.halie.com/oFu.jpg

You can see the bottle of antifreeze that am am pouring in to one of the tubes. As I pour in the coolant, I squeeze the larger sections of silicone in various places in the system to force coolant to move and fluctuate to "burp" the system which encourages bubbles to travel to the high points in the system where those two vertical tubes are temporarily placed.

Unfortunately the last time I filed the system I did not do this process and as a result there must have been a sufficient amount of air trapped near the water pump to cause it to cavitate enough so the coolant would not be properly pumped through the system.

This just highlights the importance of making sure your system is completely filled and no air is trapped in the system. Some engines have bleed ports to release trapped air. I do not believe this system as a port like this.

When I did another run up today the system worked very well. After the engine was properly warmed I ran it up to 4000 rpm.

Much more testing to come.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

Yup this is super important. Trapped air in the system is the #1 cause of overheating issues on liquid cooled conversions that I'v seen and helped people with.

My suggesting to avoid the long filling process is to run a -3 line from one or both of these high points to your coolant tank. This way, any air in the system is automatically bled out when you run the engine. I usually call these active or dynamic bleeds. Saves time and is even better than trying to purge air during the filling process.

[charosenz]

Ross,

Yes I do have that dynamic or active bleed line. I may not have explained this well in my post but it is the line in the photo with the green arrow pointing to it. This line goes to the radiator catch can which is the highest point in my system that evacuates any air bubbles that may have been trapped. I only have to do the water bottle fill method if I completely drain the coolant which i did last month when changing the locatiom of one of the two coolant temp sensors.

[charosenz]

Now that I have the coolant system functioning properly I was able to do a run up to 4004 RPM. Everything seems to be working well. Even after about 4-5 min at 4000 RPM and 33 in Hg I was only at 185 degrees on the hot side of the radiator. I think the cool side was about 165. The water pressure was creeping up quickly though, I think it was at 14lbs. About the point the overflow gets some coolant.

The one think that bothered me though is that was only getting 33 In Hg. I was expecting more with the turbo. After serious contemplation here are some causes that ran through my mind

1) Need to bleed off more air out of the compressor line that goes to the waste gate.
2) Not enough preload on the waste gate arm?
3) Leak or too low BOV setting?
4) Leak in the the intake system somewhere?

For those that may consider a project like this, you need to be the kind of person that is comfortable with dealing with these types of grelims. They will happen. You - at least - have to put up with them, and if you are lucky and you are wired weird like me, you actually like these kind of challenges to conquer.

I decided to hook up a low pressure regulator to the intake plenum. You can see the pic below.

http://www.halie.com/oFE.jpg

You can see the gauge at the base of the photo connected to my pressure gauge. You can see it feeds in to the intake, the BOV, Intercooler and around the corner that you cannot see is the TB and intake manifold.

I ran it up to 4 lbs. I did not find one leak. I found THREE!

1) One from an abandoned Air Temp sensor. ( I removed this)
2) Some air coming from the current active air temp sensor.(I did my best to seal this using Permatex ultra black)
3) An obscure port on the TB. (I plugged with with foam, Ultra Black and a new cover plate.

It will be set up enough to test tomorrow. First will be to test the BOV to see if it still opens at 12-14 lbs. If that is good I'll do another run up to 4000 may be 4500, may be 5000 rpm

I am hoping to get 40" at 4000 rpm and maybe 45" at 5000 rpm

That would be a mile stone on this project and I would be very happy.

Ill keep you 'all posted. Feel free to ask questions. I even welcome constructive critique, we all need to learn from others. All I ask is the comments are respectful and not denigrating to any person in particular.

Charlie

[charosenz]

After closing up all the air leaks in the intake system and calibrating the BOV and Waste gate release pressure I was able to do two hard run ups to 4400 rpm.

I am very please with the 72" 3 Bladed warp drive prop. It seerms to be a very good match for my set up. The prop had enough resistance when set at 20 degrees pitch that it held at 4400 rpm. It held at 4400 RPM at about 35 inches MAP. I increased to 40" hg, and the prop held firm at 4400 RPM static. These runs are of course on the ground.

Temps were real good as well. I started the run up at 170 degrees on the coolant and while on the ground with no radiator shroud, I can get several minutes above 30" MAP before it overheats. I can run at 25" MAP all day and it stays at 185 degrees. Very Happy with the radiator performance.

Unfortunately I regret I forgot to look at IAT. I sure wish I had looked but I was much more interested in MAP and RPM and Coolant temps. Running at that RPM in your parking lot is very nerve wracking.

After two runups, I pulled the plugs and they all looked very nice. I also did a compression test. The engine was still slightly warm . All cylinders were between 220-235 lbs. I am very happy with that.

This is really a good milestone for this project. The success it motivation to push forward.

Charlie

[sblack]

how can you have 2 runs at the same rpm but different MAP? This is a fixed pitch prop right? I don't know of a CS warp drive but I suppose nothing is impossible. Different MAP means different power being produced, so the RPM should be higher at the higher MAP. Something is strange here.

[rv6ejguy]

how can you have 2 runs at the same rpm but different MAP? This is a fixed pitch prop right? I don't know of a CS warp drive but I suppose nothing is impossible. Different MAP means different power being produced, so the RPM should be higher at the higher MAP. Something is strange here.

Prop blades could be partially stalled during the static run. Seen this many times on test stands so clubs are preferable.

[charosenz]

Ross,

Yes, that is what I believe is happening at about 4100 RPM when the RPM no longer increases with the MAP in lockstep.

I will drop the pitch a degree or two to move up the static RPM to 4400-4500 with 5-7 lbs boost and call it good. I believe that would be ideal for this engine, PSRU and this airframe. My target max rpm in flight is 5000 RPM and cruise will be 4200-4600 rpm with about 5lbs boost.

With all the other systems.... Coolant, ECU, PSRU, etc all performing well, I plan to move on to some more mundane tasks like finishing the panel, pitot systems, control rigging, interior work etc.

Thanks.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I dropped the pitch to about 18.5 degrees and did a couple of short run ups.

As you would suspect I gained 300-400 RPM but the MAP was down a bit. At 4600rpm and about 36" map. This time I saw about 115*F IAT. EGT was 1200*F. PSRU was about 105*f.

I am still very happy with this set up. I believe 20* with 4100-4200 ish static RPM is a good place to start. RPM will increase some when the plane is air borne. From there, it will be time to do more testing.

I did expect (and hope) to see slightly higher MAP with this prop at that RPM and that pitch, but I am very close to those ideal numbers that I see nothing to change.

I did wonder if my turbo compressor reference line might have been pushing my waste gate actuator open a bit too early? Since I am only doing ground testing, I disconnected it to see what the system would do with no reference signal. Since the waste gate is set to move at about 9 lbs, I doubted this was happening but I just had to test it. My guess was correct. No change at all. Since the BOV is set to release at 10 lbs I am confident this is not limiting the boost as well.

The only other logic I can see would be that the turbine trim of this T3/T4 turbo is tad too large to produce boost as early as would be ideal.

But at this state I am still very happy with it and I need to move on to other tasks. One will be to build a shroud for the intercooler to take advantage of ram air once in flight.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

What turbine wheel and housing are you running?

The prop won't be stalled once you're moving so you can expect quite a bit more rpm in flight. You're likely to find the FP prop won't be the best compromise in cruise flight, especially up high with the turbo since power doesn't drop off.

I have to add a lot more pitch when I level off up high, even at moderate MAP levels.

[skylor]

The prop won't cavitate once you're moving so you can expect quite a bit more rpm in flight.


Let's get one thing straight. Air propellers can not cavitate. EVER. Cavitation is specifically a phenomenon that occurs in liquids when localized pressures drop below the liquids' vapor pressure and gas bubbles form.

The phenomenon the you are calling "cavitation" is more likely aerodynamic stall of the blades which can occur during static run-up due to the high relative angle of attack of a propeller blade moving at high speed in still air. Forward motion of the aircraft reduces angle of attack of the propeller blades.

Skylor

[rv6ejguy]

My bad choice of terms here. You are correct.

[charosenz]

Ross,

Here are the numbers for my turbo.

The Compressor is .60 A/R IN: 54.3mm EX:71mm
54.3 x 54.3 = 2950 71 x 71 = 5041
2950/5041 = 58 Trim on the compressor with a .60 A/R
Turbine is .63 A/R IN:65.25mm EX: 56mm
65.25 x 65.25 = 4257 56 x 56 = 3136
3136/4257 = 74 Trim on the Turbine with a .63 A/R


Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

All look reasonable here. I'd expect you should be able to make 40 inches at 4000 rpm easily

[charosenz]

Thanks for looking over the numbers. I'm good with things.

Charlie.

[charosenz]

More progress!

I have installed the dual fuel pump, dual filter, check valve fuel system on my plane and it worked perfect. I posted a picture of it a while back.

I used 3/8 copper/nickel hard line instead of braided rubber and instead of aluminum because it is not subject to fire like braided hose, and it is about 5 times stronger than aluminum only a fraction of weight more, and it is inexpensive and very easy to work with.

Since I have the radiator under the belly of the plane that is enclosed in a custom aluminum sheet duct, it made for a perfect solution to hide the fuel system. I know it will be a compromise to the flow of air in to the radiator because it hangs down in front of the radiator, (I know Ross wont like the sight of that! Since his is so skillfully streamlined - Sorry Ross) but I am also confident the radiator and ducting will still provide all the cooling I need. I suspect I may lose 3-4 MPH on the top end from this but I never intended on building a racer.

The other benefit is that I do not have any fuel fittings in the cabin of the plane. To me, that is a plus. It will also make it easy to service as I used an6 fittings in strategic places to make changing the fuel filters easy.

I did a static fuel flow test using different combinations of one tank and one pump to both tanks with both pumps. One the least flow was with the back up pump using only one tank still produced 30 gph. Both tanks and both pumps flowed about 70 gph. I am using dual wasbro GSL393 pumps.

The bad news is that I am having to pull the engine to take off the nose gear to get it modified at the machine shop to comply with the Servie Bulletin. What a pain! but...gotta do it.

Next I am going to start working on a shroud for the intercooler.

Charlie

[charosenz]

One important task when turbocharging an engine is to recognize the potential that pressure may develop in the crankcase if measures are not taken to vent the crankcase beyond what is normally accomplished by the PCV.

When you add turbocharging you add positive pressure to the intake manifold, which by its very nature eliminates vacuum from the intake, which prevents the PCV from being able to vent the gases in the crankcase.

One solution to consider is to add a line from the crankcase to an oil catch can. This is often done in lieu of the PCV. The reason for this is that in order for the PCV to work effectively, it needs vacuum.

Here is a pic of a push-to-connect nylon line where the PCV used to be that is connected to an oil catch can.

http://www.halie.com/scale/70/oFN.jpg

The same is true for the valve cover, it needs to be able to vent pressure and the best way is to connect a line to a catch can as well. Here is a pic of a push-to-connect with a nylon line on it as well.

http://www.halie.com/scale/70/oFk.jpg

[Reference to using smaller line removed ....]

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

If these are the only crankcase vent lines, I'd suggest upping the size considerably. Minimum I'd run on a turbo engine would be a single 1/2" ID.

If you've ever seen a turbo engine on the dyno at full chat, you'd see a very high rate of flow from here which can build up a lot of crankcase pressure quickly.

[charosenz]

Ross

I know some high boost guys need big lines. I'm only at 5 lbs boost. It would be interesting to see if there was still pressure using a 1/4" at 5lbs. Now my curiosity may cause me to dig out a low pressure ga...and put it to use.

Good thought!

P.s. I know there can be quite a difference between engines. Some will have much more blow-by than others.

Thanks.

Charlie.

[charosenz]

I was able to get a MAP pressure gauge connected to the 1/4" line off of the crankcase and valve cover. I did a bench test on the gauge first just to make sure it was reasonably accurate.

I am fortunate that this engine did not create any appreciable pressure at 5 lbs of boost with the 1/4" vent lines. If it did, it was less than what I could see on the MAP gauge I was using, probably 1 lb or less.

This is certainly not to suggest that a 1/4" line will be enough for other engines with turbos. It would be wise for anyone with a turbo set up to test their system to make sure they have adequate venting. There are many folks who use larger lines to vent their crankcases and valve covers.

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

Good to test and have some numbers. I'd say you have very good ring sealing on your engine. Continue on!

[Piper J3]

Good to test and have some numbers. I'd say you have very good ring sealing on your engine. Continue on!

Yes, but what happens when engine begins to wear and crankcase pressure climbs? Would be best to install larger line now and not have problem future...

[rv6ejguy]

Yes, but what happens when engine begins to wear and crankcase pressure climbs? Would be best to install larger line now and not have problem future...

I thought the same thing. Also if you damage a piston which can be common with cast ones, you can lose all the oil quickly out the dipstick tube which could be an issue getting it down safely with partial power.

[charosenz]

Jim, Ross,

Good points and thanks for sharing.

Charlie

[DanH]

I am fortunate that this engine did not create any appreciable pressure at 5 lbs of boost with the 1/4" vent lines. If it did, it was less than what I could see on the MAP gauge I was using, probably 1 lb or less.

Case pressure is typically measured in units much smaller than PSI. For example, the Lycoming case pressure limit is something like 4~5 inches of water. One (1) psi is 27.67 inches H2O. Perhaps a re-test with a manometer? I'd expect a healthy Honda to exhibit less blowby than a Lycoming, so an accurate baseline captured now may be useful as a diagnostic tool later.

[charosenz]

Dan,

Good point. I have read the high boost guys with high end dynos actually measure SCFM. Ultimately though when it comes to problem I think it is fair to say that PSI is what will cause things like seals and gaskets to leak and worse fail. I've seen quite a few charts that show the SCFM and PSI per hose diameter unfortunately most charts are geared towards high pressure. I have not found one with good specs on lower pressre (i.e. 0.5 - 3.0 psi) as it relates to say 0.125" - 0.50" hose size.) If you find one please post. Same with an easy way to measure, say, 0.2" to 2.0" scfm. Other than to extapolate the SCFM with known credible PSI and Hose I.D. numbers.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the manometer is a good idea. I think I detected some suction on low RPM. So the current home man manometer will have to be redesigned. And dang, allowing for suction and up to say 30In is one tall manometer! I just need more time to do all of this.

Aside from this, I have to admit pushing this set up in to boost is on the edge. Last time I crept up to 4500 rpm at 40" MAP I actually felt it starting to lift and get really light on the right gear. Needless to say I quickly reduced the power. Without wings on the fuse, it is just not stable enough in the roll axis to push it very hard. So higher MAP crank case pressure testing may have to wait until the wings are on it.

Thanks.

Charlie.

[charosenz]

I found this digital low pressure gauge. I bench tested it and it seems to read down to 0.30 psi and increases on tenths of PSI. It even quickly measure pressure from simply blowing in it. (even though it states it is 0.5 psi resolution. Cheap too readily available on Amazon or Ebay.

Dan's idea of a manometer is still a very good choice, this is a simple option as well.

http://www.halie.com/oJi.jpg

charlie

[charosenz]

All is well with the Honda Project. The engine is running great and I am working on a few aspects of the project that are not directly tied to the Honda engine itself. None the less I thought I would provide an update.

I am working on the electrical system and that includes the stick grip switches. I purchased the infinity Aerospace grips a long time ago and at this point I needed relays for Elevator, Aileron and flaps.

I found a diagram that Bob Nucklos on the Infinity website that shows the components necessary to build your own relay deck. I thought it would be fun and an inexpensive project.

So I created my own PCB using a free tool called EasyEDA and then had the blank PCB built and added the components myself.

Here is a picture of the Trim Relay boards I built.
http://www.halie.com/oJ1.jpg

It is an ingenious system that allow the trim and flap motors to reverse direction by simply grounding two wires off the grip switch.

Here is the diagram in a simplified view.

http://www.halie.com/oJ8.jpg

I am willing to sell these for a modest cost if you are interested PM me.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Charlie -

Are the trim motors adjustable for speed? I converted my RV-12 to Ray Allen with two-speed trim. Very slow speed in cruise and fast trim in slow flight in the pattern. Speed is selectable with toggle switch. Makes airplane a pleasure to fly...

https://i.postimg.cc/Vv2Q6tZR/Screenshot-2019-12-17-21-32-38-659.png (https://postimages.org/)

[loopfuzz]

Fun to see projects like this. Hope it works out well for you. You are not to far away from me. Near Battle Ground.

Cheers!

[charosenz]

Fun to see projects like this. Hope it works out well for you. You are not to far away from me. Near Battle Ground.

Cheers!

Thanks. You are always welcome to come visit if you want to see it in person. We also have a good EAA Chapter meeting each month. Here is our website.

http://www.eaa1111.org/monthly-meeting/

Charlie

[charosenz]

Charlie -

Are the trim motors adjustable for speed? I converted my RV-12 to Ray Allen with two-speed trim. Very slow speed in cruise and fast trim in slow flight in the pattern. Speed is selectable with toggle switch. Makes airplane a pleasure to fly...

https://i.postimg.cc/Vv2Q6tZR/Screenshot-2019-12-17-21-32-38-659.png (https://postimages.org/)

Jim,

I had not thought of that. Good idea. So is your "slow" equal to RA stock or is the fast setting equal to stock?

Charlie

[BillL]

Jim,

I had not thought of that. Good idea. So is your "slow" equal to RA stock or is the fast setting equal to stock?

Charlie

Charlie, I do the same on my 7 and fast is full speed with the slow being set by a ray allen trim pot. I tested for a few months until I liked the speed then hid, ahh, errr . . . . relocated it behind the panel

[charosenz]

Charlie, I do the same on my 7 and fast is full speed with the slow being set by a ray allen trim pot. I tested for a few months until I liked the speed then hid, ahh, errr . . . . relocated it behind the panel

Good to know and sounds real simple...I like that.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Charlie, I do the same on my 7 and fast is full speed with the slow being set by a ray allen trim pot. I tested for a few months until I liked the speed then hid, ahh, errr . . . . relocated it behind the panel

Exactly... My trim pot is located behind the panel after I made final settings. Slow is really slow for cruise. RV-12 guys that fly my plane like the ability to easily set pitch trim at cruise speeds without overshooting. Trim speed for slow flight in the pattern is quite fast. Works very nice and feels natural as the plane slows down. Again - no overshooting. A side benefit is the ability to re-trim quickly in event of a missed approach and go-around.

Another thought - I don't know if you would use two speeds for each of the three axis (I suspect you would). In that case, use a single toggle switch to operate a relay with three sets of contacts - one for each axis.

[charosenz]

I can see where a slow mode would really be helpful esp for pitch. Ill probably wait till I am flying to get some sort of idea where I would want to end up with the slow speed.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Charlie -

Here's another option for automatically switching pitch trim servo speed... Use an airspeed switch that ties into the pitot system.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/uniswitchbattery.php

[charosenz]

Charlie -

Here's another option for automatically switching pitch trim servo speed... Use an airspeed switch that ties into the pitot system.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/uniswitchbattery.php

Thanks Jim,

I had not seen one before that allowed for a airspeed component. Nice.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I had a chance to build up a simple shroud for my intercooler. Here is a pic of it.

http://www.halie.com/oJ5.jpg

Here is how it looked in the pattern stage. It is 0.25" aluminum. I actually like the 0.025 aluminum sheet found in the aviation section at Lowes for pieces like this. I find it is easier to bend that 2024-T3. The next picture shows it on my DIY wooden sheet metal brake I made out of old hard wood maple doors and a hardware hinge. Works real good. I do find it helps to duct tape the piece in place. Keeps it from creeping while in the clamps. With metal this thin you can simply hold the metal or wooden brake by hand while it is being bent.

http://www.halie.com/oJF.jpg

Here it is attached to the intercooler.

http://www.halie.com/oJJ.jpg

The only down side to this set up is it did not allow for a nice outlet that is plumbed to a negative pressure area. While this would be ideal, I am going to wait and see how well it works as is. I have seen very nice temp drops with the intercooler on the test stand with no shroud at all, so I think my IAT (inlet air temps) will be reduced at least as well as what I saw on the test stand (60*F-80*F) and probably much better, and if that happens this will be more than enough to get me where I want my IAT to be. Given that very small amount of boost I plan to use <7lbs This should do just find.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Charlie -

Another option for trim servo speed control... https://shop.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/shop.cgi?ident=1473603067-150-48&browse=airframe&product=safety-trim

[charosenz]

Charlie -

Another option for trim servo speed control... https://shop.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/shop.cgi?ident=1473603067-150-48&browse=airframe&product=safety-trim

Good to know thanks.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Update.

I have been fairly engrossed in working on the instrument panel, which is not directly tied to the Honda installation so I have not posted much.

I also had sent back the PSRU gearbox back to Viking Aircraft Engines at their request to install a new (improved) bearing, which they did at no expense to me (other than shipping to them).

I ran the engine to day for about 30 minutes checking airtemps, gearbox temps, coolant temps and pressure, voltage etx. All ran really well. I especially like the new larger (72") 3 bladed warp drive prop. I could not be happier with the set up at this point.

I will be spending at least another month on the panel and other more mundane things like brakes system, pitot systems etc.

So while I may not be posting much, you can be assured that I am marching full speed ahead in the back ground. While I hate to even try to pinpoint a "done" date (as many of those have come and gone) I do hope to get there before summer. We shall see.

As always, feel free to ask questions or add (friendly) comments.

P.S. I have some questions on wiring up the flightcom 403mc intercom and my radio which is an ICOM IC-A200. I wont post them on this thread but if anyone is knowledgeable about the wiring of these that I could run a few questions by you please PM me if you have time.

Charlie

Charlie

[charosenz]

I thought I would let folks know that things are progressing well. They are just not too exciting at this point.

* disclaimer - this post is not directly related to the engine project so if you are only interested in the Honda - you are welcome to stop reading.

I did get my radio stack wiring done. This was something I started, literally, a decade ago. My stack includes COMM: Icom A200. Transponder: GTX320a, Intercom: Flightcom 403MC: a stereo and a 2 meter ham radio.

The good news is that the GTX320A is going to be compatible with the EchoUAT that I am about ready to purchase for my ADSB out obligation.

Gosh, it would be nice if companies used the same terms for the same wire! Some call the secondary line of a mic a "return" while others call it "mic Lo". UGH!'

Now that it is done. (Al be it still on my bench). I am very happy with the set up. I am impressed with the Flightcom 403MC. It small, and inexpensive, works great and had the Pilot Isolate and "All" switch. It is not stereo, which would be nice, but with all the engine, wind, noise I really do not see the need for it. I will rarely listen to it. ALSO, I learned a real neat trick to combine Stereo in to a mono circuit by only having to add a 500-100 ohm resistor on each channel to make it work. No need to spend lots of money for magic boxes to get this done. I have to fade it L or R to get the sound but I am quite impressed with the quality of the music.

I'll be pulling the panel out of the plane to install the stack and I probably will finish up the Pitot system while I am in there. I'll do the brake lines while I am there too.

As always, questions, comments, suggestions, always welcome.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I took a break from the work on the instrument panel to run the engine for a bit. It ran perfectly. It did heat up real fast though without the prop blowing air across the non-shrouded belly radiator. I was suprised how much the prop air actually helped the radiator cool.

Here is the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd0X2KGnHFI

Also, I was able to knock out the fuel tank vent lines in the cabin as well as the Brake lines.

I also created a tunnel in the center section of the floor for wires to run aft, like antenna coax, flap motor, aileron trim wires, etc.

The next big hurdle will be getting the wings on to test for incidence and sweep as well as final rigging of all control surfaces.

I took the rudder pedal assembly out while working on the brake lines and fuel vent lines. What a PAIN that was. If those were one mm longer I would not have been able to remove them. Can't wait to get those back in. But it makes sense to leave them out while more panel work is needed: The trim wires, fuel gauge wires, etc.

Thanks to all who have patience while this project moves along. NO ONE wants to see this done and fly more than me.

Good flying to all.

Charlie

[sblack]

I drive a fit. It's my second one. First had 300,000 km (180,0000 miles) on it and is now with my son. Runs perfectly. Never had an issue with the engine. I hope it runs well for you and is reliable.

[McStevens]

It was posted a while ago but is it a good idea to make that oil cooler out of such soft aluminum?

[Alchemist]

Man if my lycon had VTEC I would be set! Put Ktune hondata on it and let's go beats some v8's. How I miss my ricer days. :)

[charosenz]

I drive a fit. It's my second one. First had 300,000km (180,0000 miles) on it and is now with my son. Runs perfectly. Never had an issue with the engine. I hope it runs well for you and is reliable.

There is little debate that the Honda engines have a great reputation. As with most "alternative" engines the weak link is usually the gearbox, then the cooling system. But typically if there is a failure the "auto" engine usually takes the blame.

The project has been a blast so far. No project like this, including mine, has not had some setbacks, but right now, I am very happy and look forward to getting it flying.

Anyway, thanks for the post.

Charlie

[charosenz]

It was posted a while ago but is it a good idea to make that oil cooler out of such soft aluminum?

It is an intercooler not an oilcooler. (Hope I did not say "oilcooler"on the vid.)
It just cools the air from the turbo on its way to the engine.

But....yes, it would be too light for an oilcooler...

Thanks for posting.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Man if my lycon had VTEC I would be set! Put Ktune hondata on it and let's go beats some v8's. How I miss my ricer days. :)

The engine I am using is the R18 nothing like the "typeR" engines, but it does quite well at the RPM and Mild boost I am using. Most of the super high performance we see in the new engines get all that super power at real high RPM $6k+) that is (IMHO) not all that applicable for aircraft flying. When you see the power they produce at more realistic ranges like 4K-5K RPM they start to look real similar - given the same displacement and same boost........

(But I would not pass up on a free K20C1 for my project!!!!).

You mentioned Ktuner. I am using Simple Digital Systems EM4. (SDSEFI.com) It has control over ignition and injection timing and is very user friendly. I believe it is absolutely one of the most important components with this project. I have never used KTuner, but this SDS is so simple I don't think I could have had the success I have ad so far without it. One super feature is that it has a mixture knob. Which for an airplane in flight, it is far more user friendly than trying to change a fuel map on a laptop while flying.

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Super good. I'm eagerly following your progress and await first flight testing...

[charosenz]

Things are progressing well.

It was time for me to fit and rig the wings. I have had them on the Fuse before but not to set the incidence, sweep and install most of the bolts for a true test fit. (as you can see in my avatar....

To do this you have to set the plane up on a stand without the main wheels. This is because the main wheel gear leg on a "-A" are attached directly to the wingspar.

Here is my fuse on the stand ready for the wing fit, which I hope will be Saturday.

http://www.halie.com/oqL.jpg

Charlie

[Piper J3]

Hope everything is progressing well. I suspect you are sheltering-in-place and working steadily on project. Stay safe. I keep checking for updates...

[charosenz]

Jim, et all,

Yes, things are going well. I am burning the midnight oil lately on non-engine related build tasks. Like, rigging all the controls, finishing all the panel wiring, pitot system, brake systems, etc. Sort of the not-so-fun-stuff for me. But it is going well.

Here is a pic of me setting the wing incidence. After reading the manual I sought out to do things with various priorities in mind. 1) Watching for proper edge distance on drilling rear spar tabs. 2) Making sure the wings were true to each other. 3) being true to the longerons. Using a digital scale with many reference checks I was very happy to get the wings at 0.00 degrees to each other and within 0.44 degrees true to the longerons. The edge distance was no issue at all.

I also was very happy setting the wing sweep. The manual says withing 1/2" is allowed. I dropped the 4 plumb lines off the forward edge of the wings per plans and shot a laser across them. The laser hit all four lines. Probably about 1/8" tolerance at the end of the light. Good by me esp knowing this is a slow build before all the wonderful pre-punched holes.

Here are some pics.

http://www.halie.com/oqb.jpg

Here is the laser shot:

http://www.halie.com/oqt.jpg

I have had a terrible time in the past 3 months finding a hangar to rent in SW Washington. I did find one that was $650 a month plus utilities. Nice, but I really hope I don't have to rent that one!

I am on Mike Seagers schedule in May for transition training and I am trying really hard to find a CFI before that for some refersher training but with the virus, no one is giving one-on-one instruction.

If anyone has questions feel free to ask.

Charlie

[charosenz]

I have made good progress on mainly non engine related tasks. Reinstalling the wings, setting up the control surfaces and stops, finishing the instrument panel, routing wires and pitot and static lines, creating the wing root skins, and wing tips, and much much more.

Let to do.

1) Gear leg fairings
2) Canopy latching set up.
3) ADS B in and out.
4) Static and Pitot lines to guages
5) Installing antennas.
6) Install ELT.
7) Install and bled brakes.
8) Cut exhaust through cowling.
9) Upholstery
10) much more.

I hope to be able to take it to the airport in about 5 weeks.

Here is a fun panoramix my wife took last week.

http://www.halie.com/oC4.jpg

[Piper J3]

Good report. I've been checking on you ever week. Remember to get current on flying skills. Actually - more than current with so many new systems in play on first flights. Wish best of luck and enjoy following your progress. Stay safe from virus...

[charosenz]

Jim

I have been very busy, but I have not shared a lot because it goes a bit beyond the focus of the thread.

Fortunately I am on Mike Seagers schedule next month for transition training. I am very fortunate to be able to get this level of training.

I am also on the hunt for a CFI to give me some additional refresher training prior to my time with Mike. But I am having a heck of a time finding a CFI. I think I may have posted this previously.

I heard there is a CFI with a RV6 in Olympia (WA) but I have not found his contact info yet.

Charlie

[charosenz]

Things are progressing quite well.

I finally made a decision on which way I was going to have the exhaust exit the cowling. This was a bit of a big decision for me, only because once you cut a hole in that cowl you are committed.

So here are some pics of the turbo exhaust exiting the cowl. Also a view from the top.

Side view

http://www.halie.com/oCD.jpg

Top view of exhaust exiting cowl.

http://www.halie.com/oCN.jpg

Overall view of engine of top view.

http://www.halie.com/oCk.jpg

I hope to have things ready to make the move to the airport in 3-4 weeks.

I fortunately have lined up two CFI for some refresher training too.

Feel free to ask questions .

Charlie

[rv6ejguy]

It's coming along nicely. Do you have a heat shield for the turbine outlet pipe to the silicone hose?

[charosenz]

Ross,

Thank you for the nice words.

It is funny that you mentioned the heat shield. That is exactly what I shared with my wife who was so nice to help me with the cowling and cutting that exhaust hole. I am leaning on using band clamps on the exhaust to hold a thin stainless shield about 3/8" off the pipe. This would give about 3/4" between the shield and the silicone. If you have time, I would like to know your thoughts on that.

[Piper J3]

I wonder how hot the exhaust is after the turbo? A lot of energy gets used up spinning the compressor.

[Piper J3]

Not quite the same thing: The RV-12 has a flexible oil hose passing thru exhaust loop of right front cylinder. The hose is held away from the hot exhaust with a minimal hanger strap. I always shake my head at that decision...

https://i.postimg.cc/T2J0jQbG/Screen-Shot-2020-05-16-at-7-37-37-PM.png (https://postimg.cc/Btt24TNw)

[charosenz]

I wonder how hot the exhaust is after the turbo? A lot of energy gets used up spinning the compressor.

Jim

I really have not ran the engine long enough at high manifold pressures to give a meaningful temp. But my recollection is 1300*F for a ball ball park number

[rv6ejguy]

Ross,

Thank you for the nice words.

It is funny that you mentioned the heat shield. That is exactly what I shared with my wife who was so nice to help me with the cowling and cutting that exhaust hole. I am leaning on using band clamps on the exhaust to hold a thin stainless shield about 3/8" off the pipe. This would give about 3/4" between the shield and the silicone. If you have time, I would like to know your thoughts on that.

Yup, that's worked for me on my setup.