|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

10-14-2014, 06:38 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Littleton, Colorado
Posts: 182
|
|
This is defiantly a novel in the making, fiction, non-fiction. Striving for better engine management is like the carrot hanging in front of the donkey on a stick with a string, theory, to move forward. Dyno pulls don't always go as planned. Data crashes, etc. or new ideas that need more tweaking. Results, contribute to evolution and knowledge.
|

10-14-2014, 07:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by osxuser
So what you are saying is, a 4% loss in peak HP from stock mags and injection compared to a 1% gain over a LIGHTSPEED equipped engine wasn't enough for you to wait for another test that everyone else involved thought was necessary? It just seems irresponsible to print data you know isn't complete, especially since the reasons for the low numbers during your tests were obvious and known going in, lacking a dyno with a fuel return line.
|
Like the results or not, the process seemed pretty cut and dried, and the results of the testing were published objectively. If the EFII installation wasn't optimal, whose fault was that? I'd say it was the EFII suppliers' problem.
If you want your product to do well in comparative testing, you have to show up prepared, which includes bringing whatever bits you need to plumb a fuel return or make any other adaptations are necessary for your installation. Otherwise, you end up on message boards making excuses about why your product underperformed.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
|

10-14-2014, 11:20 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 431
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright
Like the results or not, the process seemed pretty cut and dried, and the results of the testing were published objectively. If the EFII installation wasn't optimal, whose fault was that? I'd say it was the EFII suppliers' problem.
If you want your product to do well in comparative testing, you have to show up prepared, which includes bringing whatever bits you need to plumb a fuel return or make any other adaptations are necessary for your installation. Otherwise, you end up on message boards making excuses about why your product underperformed.
|
Kyle,
Not sure what's with your negativity, why you just want to say "those were the rules, they lost" or if you're just determined to find a way to validate what's in your plane... There were no rules, it wasn't a competition. It was an opportunity to do some testing and I footed the bill.....
The answer to your statement is in my thread....did you actually read it? Had Robert not spent an entire day just helping to get the Bendix system running, he(we, all of us) would have had time to modify the fuel set up and make it correct... As it went, we didn't. It's nobodies "fault" but that's what happened.
I wrote this threat just to fill everybody in on the whole story so that, combined with the Kitplanes article, you'd get the whole picture...
I DID NOT intend to spur on this type of ongoing unproductive bickering... Questions...I support, helpful info tidbits, great!...
Opinionated finger pointing, I cannot support....
Come on people.... You can do better, this stuff is supposed to FUN!!
__________________
John Walker
RV-10 N265WD
"Miss Whiskey Delta"
BPE IO-540, FULL EFII
KMYF, San Diego, Ca.
KEOS, Neosho, MO
Crew Chief
Grove Aero Super Legacy Reno Racer,
twin turbo, IO-540,
full EFII management system!
Race Coordinator STOL Drag coming to Reno, 2019
"so I got that going for me... which is nice."
Last edited by Bluelabel : 10-14-2014 at 11:29 PM.
|

10-15-2014, 04:27 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelabel
Had Robert not spent an entire day just helping to get the Bendix system running, he (we, all of us) would have had time to modify the fuel set up and make it correct... As it went, we didn't. It's nobodies "fault" but that's what happened.
|
That's ridiculous.
Paisley never checked the dyno room setup, despite being there Monday. Monty Barrett pointed out the lack of a Floscan to Paisley at 11:10 AM on Tuesday, give or take a few seconds....and you were there.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
|

10-15-2014, 06:39 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: State of Bliss
Posts: 396
|
|
Constructive Feedback
This thread invited constructive feedback, which has been provided. There's considerable useful information here.
This experiment's lessons:
1) Superior due diligence is a prerequisite for meaningful results.
2) Show the press when the results are consistent & repeatable!
__________________
Ch?z King
|

10-15-2014, 08:44 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 431
|
|
Issues
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH
That's ridiculous.
Paisley never checked the dyno room setup, despite being there Monday. Monty Barrett pointed out the lack of a Floscan to Paisley at 11:10 AM on Tuesday, give or take a few seconds....and you were there.
|
Dan,
I'm not sure what your problem is....I personally am getting really sick of it.... For once, just leave it alone. We didn't have enough time to correct the problem.... Period end of story. You really want to split hairs about whether there WAS OR WASN'T enough time to re-plumb, and fix the set up??? But you did validate my point...2 DAYS TO SET UP AND TUNE THE FIRST SYSTEM, A FEW HOURS TO INSTALL AND RUN THE SECOND....
One reason I posted this thread is to make up for the fact that the article made us all look like idiots... Things weren't set up correctly, the results were flawed, you knew it, you printed it anyway.... As has been pointed out by many.
All I wanted was to see my engine run on MY system before I took it home.... This has turned into a total S$&@ show....
__________________
John Walker
RV-10 N265WD
"Miss Whiskey Delta"
BPE IO-540, FULL EFII
KMYF, San Diego, Ca.
KEOS, Neosho, MO
Crew Chief
Grove Aero Super Legacy Reno Racer,
twin turbo, IO-540,
full EFII management system!
Race Coordinator STOL Drag coming to Reno, 2019
"so I got that going for me... which is nice."
Last edited by Bluelabel : 10-15-2014 at 08:51 AM.
|

10-15-2014, 09:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 387
|
|
An Objective Look
No matter how one looks at the Barrett testing, the EFII system as tested was not fully configured with the required fuel return line. It sounds like most of the test time was spent trying to make the baseline engine configuration work (mechanical injection and magnetos) and very little time was left to set-up and test the EFII system. I don?t see how this situation represents EFII (Robert Paisley) not being prepared, diligent, or working hard to make the testing as successful as possible.
In an attempt to keep the dyno fuel flow reading working, Robert installed the EFII system without a fuel return line. In other words, the team elected to proceed despite the sub-optimal EFII test configuration. They ran with what they had; not what they wanted, because the facility was not prepared to handle the new set-up.
I don?t see how conclusions can be drawn about fully-configured EFII system performance except that the EFII system was able to run successfully with a very slight decrease in horsepower and a noticeable increase in fuel efficiency despite the sub-optimal test configuration. Hopefully, Robert and Allen Barrett will be able to re-test in the future with the proper setup.
It should be noted that two days after the Barrett testing, the Titan testing, in the proper configuration with a fuel return line (cooler fuel), showed an increase in horsepower.
__________________
Bill Palmer
|

10-15-2014, 09:48 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 431
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Palmer
No matter how one looks at the Barrett testing, the EFII system as tested was not fully configured with the required fuel return line. It sounds like most of the test time was spent trying to make the baseline engine configuration work (mechanical injection and magnetos) and very little time was left to set-up and test the EFII system. I don?t see how this situation represents EFII (Robert Paisley) not being prepared, diligent, or working hard to make the testing as successful as possible.
In an attempt to keep the dyno fuel flow reading working, Robert installed the EFII system without a fuel return line. In other words, the team elected to proceed despite the sub-optimal EFII test configuration. They ran with what they had; not what they wanted, because the facility was not prepared to handle the new set-up.
I don?t see how conclusions can be drawn about fully-configured EFII system performance except that the EFII system was able to run successfully with a very slight decrease in horsepower and a noticeable increase in fuel efficiency despite the sub-optimal test configuration. Hopefully, Robert and Allen Barrett will be able to re-test in the future with the proper setup.
It should be noted that two days after the Barrett testing, the Titan testing, in the proper configuration with a fuel return line (cooler fuel), showed an increase in horsepower.
|
Thanks Bill,
I think that sums it up.
Yes, the hope is to do it again..at Barrett. Since I go right near there frequently and I really like Rhonda and Allen (Just great people, what can I say), I've offered to help facilitate getting them fully set up for regular dyno runs and maybe even do another test just out of sheer curiosity...
John
__________________
John Walker
RV-10 N265WD
"Miss Whiskey Delta"
BPE IO-540, FULL EFII
KMYF, San Diego, Ca.
KEOS, Neosho, MO
Crew Chief
Grove Aero Super Legacy Reno Racer,
twin turbo, IO-540,
full EFII management system!
Race Coordinator STOL Drag coming to Reno, 2019
"so I got that going for me... which is nice."
|

10-15-2014, 08:03 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelabel
Dan, I'm not sure what your problem is...
|
I can help you with that!
The problem is your statements regarding schedules and available time.
You previously wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelabel
The "plan", as best I know, was for the engine to be running on Mags/Mech Monday morning, do the runs, collect data, then Monday afternoon switch over to the EFII set up, then have Tuesday to tune the system, train Barrett and us, then Wed break it down to take home. Well, as you can read, that didn't happen. It turned more into a reality show type deadline racing the clock. The EFII system literally got slapped on, ran for about 5 minutes before the runs to take data were done. Hence the improper set up.
|
The shop's standard run-in was scheduled for Monday. Allen's first priority was to ensure the core engine was satisfactory.
Set up and run-in was not really an all-day affair. There is no reason why you would know about the whole crew spending some of Monday morning breezing with a visiting celebrity pilot, or taking a nice lunch at the Mexican place, or knocking off at the usual time to have a lovely dinner downtown (Thank you Rhonda!). In between, we turned wrenches.
As noted in the article, the Bendix and Slick components were used stuff from the storage room. We had to try another flow divider, swap a pair of miss-connected fuel lines, and send the mags up the street for overhaul. Most of the run-in was complete when we quit for dinner. Allen came in early Tuesday and finished it up before any of the rest of us got there.
The reason there was no plan to do the comparison runs on Monday is rather iron-clad; Monty spends a big chunk of every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at a medical clinic. It's not optional.
Moving to Tuesday, take a look at the dyno log. It's set for CST, not CDT, so add one hour to each for local time. The Bendix/Slick runs were finished at 9:32 AM. The rest of the day was all EFii, and the blow-by-blow account in the article is dead accurate.
Quote:
|
One reason I posted this thread is to make up for the fact that the article made us all look like idiots...
|
No, it doesn't. Each reader will form his own opinion when he obtains a copy, but I know my intent. It's merely an narrative of events, as they happened. No one is crucified or blamed. There is no use of "winner" or "loser", no end zone dance, no spiking the ball. Mr Paisley took responsibility for what he later felt was an error. His explanation is given due weight, and it is clear that the outcome could be different on another day. You personally are portrayed as a nice young man with great in-laws.
Quote:
|
Things weren't set up correctly, the results were flawed, you knew it, you printed it anyway.
|
The Barrett dyno room has always included a tank return line. What it didn't have was a Floscan to measure return quantity. It was Mr. Paisley who elected to tee back to the pump inlet, but it should be noted that we could have just as easily connected to the tank return, initially or after the first run. All we would have lacked is a fuel flow indication; torque, EGT, and all else would have remained operational. It would have immediately proved or disproved the bubble theory. Instead you were instructed to make a timing change. Not a good call, but such is the nature of run-what-you-brung.
I use the word "theory" for a reason. None of us know factually if bubbles existed, or if they would make a difference. Subsequent runs at another facility have been vigorously waved about as proof, but as noted previously, no one would produce the complete data set.
The ground rules for the story were laid out many months ago. It was going to print, regardless of outcome, and would relate what actually happened, not what one might wish had happened, or believes should have happened. There's no conspiracy of the Luddite League, no malignant Oz behind the curtain. In the end it's just a story about gearheads having fun. I do hope everyone will read it and decide for themselves.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
|

10-16-2014, 12:06 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,484
|
|
My problem with the whole thing has more to do with responsible journalism than Dan H's, my own, Robert P.'s or anyone elses OPINION on the the system itself.
Dan H, you have made it clear through multiple jabs in other threads on this forum that you believe the EFII system is sub par to others, fine.
In real world settings, and in the later Dyno test everyone is seeing more power over mags/mech injection or carb. This is from speed tests in the real world. That the Titan dyno run had to remain proprietary in unfortunate for Protek from the standpoint of your article.
From the standpoint of publishing data from incomplete tests, that no one was happy with the circumstances of (except maybe you? Although, I would like to think that you would have liked to see a fully functioning dyno test as designed as well). I'm surprised Kitplanes even published it, and I'm disappointed that you submitted it as finished work.
If the mags/Mech Injection had been forced to the same timeline, it would have posted incredible efficiency, burning no gas at all, but disappointing power numbers, 0HP and 0LB/FT of torque. 
__________________
Stephen Samuelian, CFII, A&P IA, CTO
RV4 wing in Jig @ KPOC
RV7 emp built
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 AM.
|