What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Test pilot tales: N614EF

From the manual.....this is RG400, connected to the coil at the spade terminals to be checked for burning (black stuff). The coax cable and spades carry several hundred volts and thus arc nicely if loose.

mju2hw.jpg


I guess Klaus delivers the systems with RG400 now.

I can, in fact, detect the o-ring. I'll pull it off and replace. Is there a source of o-rings that's better than others? What's the secret to NOT having some of it pinched?

You may be able to see a thin band of o-ring material between the fitting and the pump case.....which is different from what you don't want to see, an uneven blob of o-ring extruded out of the joint. If you know there's an o-ring in there, there's no sign of extrusion, and it passes the boost pump leak test Dale suggests, just make sure everything is tight.
 
Yes!

Sounds like you are on the right track now that I read ALL the threads - sorry.
 
Last edited:
EIS

At the very least, I guess I know that 36 is a "normal" (if misconfigured) reading for takeoff even though it may not be an accurate one. :p

Bob,
I agree with you, the reference point of 36 is useful, and not a high priority. But while you are current with a lot of this set up stuff I will mention something in case you have the time. The recommended setting for the scale factor (SF) is usually on the paper that comes with the sensor. I can't find mine either. If 25 psi is normal for your unit and the Aux 2 is currently set at 100 changing it to 70 should give a reading of 25. One EIS manual discusses the AUX formula etc on page 17, but the page # may vary with the revision of the manual. Also if any of the AUX circuits are fed much more than 5 volts it will cause many EIS readings to go nuts.
Best regards,
Dale
RV6a (flying with GRT EIS for last 8 years)
 
fuel pump fitting

The KB series of fittings are in both the spruce and Vans catalogs. O rings are shown in place on all fittings(they may not be standard o rings) The o rings are not listed separately. The straight fitting is obviously not a problem. The 45 degree fitting could be a problem depending on orientation. 3/4 turn extra for orientation could damage the o ring. The 90 fittings MAY have a lock nut-impossible to tell from the pictures. I much prefer the AN fittings because of the orientation issue.
I found a Vans drawing on google- RV10 FF1-4 that further describes installation of these fittings.
 
As an aside ...

As I posted on another thread about my LSE Plasma II+ installation that nearly bit me in the butt last week (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=87341), Dan's picture illustrates a weak link in the coax cable connection to the LSE coils -- the union of the center connector to the crimp connector ...
coil.jpg


While I doubt that this is germane to Bob's issues, it is something to consider when installing this system. Make sure that the connection is not allowed to vibrate and weaken the center conductor, and ensure that there are no bends in the coax near the connection to the coil.
 
In case you haven't heard, Sandy is no longer with GRT. I am not sure who will be taking up the slack for her FANTASTIC user support. She is definitely already being missed in the GRT world.

Ah. The item I saw posted referred to "at the end of this month." I just assumed it was June.

Rats.
 
While I doubt that this is germane to Bob's issues, it is something to consider when installing this system. Make sure that the connection is not allowed to vibrate and weaken the center conductor, and ensure that there are no bends in the coax near the connection to the coil.

I noticed this too when I was installing. I ended up putting a lot of heatshrink on these items and really isolating the wires in consideration of this. It seemed like a weak link.
 
Good runup tonite. I just let her idle until the oil temp came up to 110the (the "I'm ready" temp according to Lycoming. )She hit 2150 and I wasn't full throttle. Best she's ever done.

If the winds die down, I may take her up a bit in the morning.

Alex couldn't make it over tonite -- wind gusts to 28--the so we'll get a timing light on the Lightspeed tomorrow.
 
(Cross posted from the blog)

Flight test follies: Part Two


I admit to being more than a little bit bummed that the first test flight, flown by me, last week was cut short, but I can safely say a Second First Flight is pretty darned cool, too.

The gusty crosswind conditions abated at KLVN (Lakeville, MN) today,leaving only 7-10 mph winds mostly down the runway. And it was cool and dry. And the engine instruments were properly calibrated (thanks to Lars Pedersen who sent me the configuration for the fuel pressure on the Grand Rapids EIS 4000). And the engine purred like a kitten last night.

She wanted to fly. And so did I.



There was nothing about N614EF's performance today that didn't want me to give it a big hug. I had rigged up my laptop to take in the engine monitor data but if there's one thing on my wish list, it's a decent logging program for the EIS 4000 engine monitor instead of the cranky ones and, alas, I found out on returning that none of the data got recorded.

But the engine monitor is a big help since I got it configured to my liking. I've got the red light glowing until the oil temperature reaches 110 degrees, meaning it's ready to fly.

I have to use the memory to remember some of the readings but it seems to me the RPM was over 2300 racing down the runway, and it climbed easily at more than 90 knots -- perhaps even 100. I circled the field at 2500 feet a bit and then firewalled the throttle in level flight to see if it could develop 2700 RPM. Maybe it could; I couldn't. I just couldn't bring myself to do that to a new engine, so I throttled back as it was still developing RPM and going past 2500. I decided, for now, to be convinced: this engine can haul me around the sky just fine.

So I headed for the corridor out to the test area -- 26 miles away -- and did, in fact, notice a considerable wing heavy on the left side. Stein Bruch is pretty sure it's related to a twist in the elevators at their attach point and misrigged flaps. So at some point when I've nothing to do, I'll spin the rod end bearing around once or twice on one side, and once or twice the other way on the other flap rod-end bearing and see what happens.

I did a few steep turns and slow flight, and opted not to do any stalls today and concentrate instead of just getting to know her a bit and get a feel for things (memo to self: Change the placard on the trim knob, it's reversed, not that it won't become instinct in a day or two).

I mostly stayed around 120 knots, showing somewhere on the order of 19 and 20 MP, and keeping the RPM in the 2000 range, give or take.

And then, because I have to make a living, I headed back to Airlake Airport. There was traffic reported in multiple directions, but as usual on these sorts of days -- and many others -- I didn't see any of it. One of these days, I'm going to get a Zaon traffic alert system.

I practiced slowing her down, because everyone says that's the hardest thing to do with a 7A, and I didn't find that too difficult, and, after a few steep turns for kicks and because it's one unbelievably beautiful day in Minnesota, headed for a 45 degree entry to the downwind, stuck out the rest of my flaps, and landed at 70 knots against a slight crosswind.

During the descent, of course, I heard the voice of Tom Berge admonish, "don't raise the nose. Don't raise the nose," and kept my airspeed at 70 (gust factor included) and made the most unbelievably gorgeous landing of any I've ever made. Perhaps of any anyone has ever made.

I smiled the RV grin, turned off the active runway, cleaned her up, and saw three or four guys standing outside a hangar. "Maybe they know me and maybe they're RVers," I thought. "Maybe they realized the significance of what they just saw," and as I taxied back to Stein's hangar, I saw them start to follow me.

I turned down the taxiway to the hangar, spun her around, and shut her down. "Should I wait for them to get here so I can properly acknowledge their cheers?" I thought. But it was getting hot under the canopy and I figured it was better to shut the system down and get her back in the hangar.

Which is good because they never showed up. They were heading for their cars and driving away, leaving me alone with an unbelievably wonderful airplane, and a grin.



This thing about not having to go to a clerk and write a check immediately after flying is going to take some getting used to.
 
Bob, you made my day buddy!!!! Many congrats on getting some quality time off the surface in something YOU BUILT!!!!!
 
I mostly stayed around 120 knots, showing somewhere on the order of 19 and 20 MP, and keeping the RPM in the 2000 range, give or take.
Congrats Bob! Looking forward to experiencing my first (and second) flight too. [just need the weather and schedules of me and my test pilot to work out]

All that said, the above caught my eye. The RPM and MP pressure settings you indicate above suggest you might be flying well below the 70-75% that's usually recommended for break in. Are you following any particular set of break-in instructions from Mahlon? Just curious, as I need to develop my own plans as well.
 
Congrats Bob! Looking forward to experiencing my first (and second) flight too. [just need the weather and schedules of me and my test pilot to work out]

All that said, the above caught my eye. The RPM and MP pressure settings you indicate above suggest you might be flying well below the 70-75% that's usually recommended for break in. Are you following any particular set of break-in instructions from Mahlon? Just curious, as I need to develop my own plans as well.

I'm intending to fly Mattituck's (Mahlon's) instructions (which I think are actually 65-70%). But there's no penalty for flying below that other than longer time to break in. Primarily, I want to see what the cylinders are doing heat-wise before going full nuts on the flight test plan.

This was a "nice to meet you" flight and not much more.
 
It Doesn't Get any better than that - end photo perfect

It Doesn't Get any better than that - end photo perfect. I do just the opposite on RPM for cruising, etc. I run it hard all the time, never below 2450 in cruise but everyone has their preferences. Great job and very enjoyable write-up, you ought to think about a career in communication.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob,

Congrats on the successful build and first (second) flight.

You are a full fledged member of the exclusive club of guys who have built and flown their own airplanes.

Welcome aboard!
 
Nice work Bob!

The fixed pitch 7A slows down nicely providing you remember to do it.;) I usually pull to about 1800RPM on the 45 and things work out pretty well.
 
Engine break-in

But there's no penalty for flying below that other than longer time to break in.

Bob, you might want to double check that notion. My understanding is that an new engine should not be operated for extended periods below 65% power or you run the risk of glazing the cylinders.

Excerpt from Lycoming document:

At cruise altitude, decrease power to approximately 75% and continue flight for 2 hours. For the second hour, do power settings alternating between 65% and 75% power as per the applicable POH.

NOTE
For correct piston ring seating, in a top overhauled engine or a newly overhauled engine, operate the aircraft at 65% to 75% cruise power until oil consumption is stable.
For a normally aspirated (nonturbocharged) engine, it will be necessary to operate at cruise power at the lower altitudes. Density altitude in excess of 8,000 feet (2438 m) will prevent the engine from reaching sufficient cruise power for an acceptable breakin; 5,000 feet (1524 m) is recommended.


This document can be found here: http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-instructions/pdfs/SI1427C.pdf
 
SWEET

Way to go BOB. See the all the work is worth it.

Glad things are smoothing out for you now.
 
Congrats, Bob! It's a LOT more fun when you're not worrying about something not working right, isn't it?

Although I'm always waiting for the Big Fan up front to suddenly stop (I don't trust mechanical things), when I look at my EMS and see a happy engine is when I take the time to look out at the wings and remember when I was slopping Proseal on rivets ... running wires ... putting bolts through bellcranks ...

Enjoy getting to know your bird and dialing in your engine parameters until you are comfortable. And, as was said, check on how your engine should be run in -- I was also under the impression that it should be run balls-to-the-wall for the first few hours and did so. My oil consumption is pretty minimal these days.
 
Bob, you might want to double check that notion. My understanding is that an new engine should not be operated for extended periods below 65% power or you run the risk of glazing the cylinders.

You risk glazing cylinders by virtue of heat, not reduced power (unless it somehow translates to heat)

Here's Mahlon's explanation (also, refer to Mattituck's engine break-in article, which he wrote):

In another words, operation at a low power setting, isn't a deterrent for break in unless we have the heat. The amount of physical time we spend, at too low of a power setting to accomplish ring seating, does increase the available amount of engine operational time, that we could glaze the cylinders from excessive heat but it will not directly cause that heat unless there is something wrong or we screw up. The low power operation, without the heat, doesn't hurt anything; it is just wasted operational time, as far as, break in goes. To put it simply, if we ran the engine for 10 hours at 50% power it is unlikely that we would break the rings in, due to the low BMEP, but it is also unlikely that we would glaze the cylinders if we didn't get the engine and cylinders too hot.
If we then operated the engine at 75% power for ten hours we would have the same chance of breaking the engine in successfully as we had before the ten hours at 50% power. But we have to understand, that ten hours at 50 % power is ten hours of, extra, wasted from a break in stand point, operational time where we could do something to cause the excessive heat, that causes glazing, if we weren't paying attention. That is the only risk of low power operation as far as break in is concerned.
If you look at this scenario, you can understand how anyone is able to run an engine, in a test cell for extended periods, when we have new rings. It is because, in a test cell, we can control the cooling and if for some reason we can't, we terminate the runs in the cell to prevent glazing just like you should in the aircraft. If you control the cooling by limiting run duration or max temps encountered, with the engine installed on the aircraft, you are able to run the same as if the engine were in a test cell. Thus, extra cell time, on a new engine, isn't really necessary to prevent glazing.

As I indicated, this isn't a "let's break in the engine flight," this was a simple "get to know you, " flight. I've spent a lot of time with the Lycoming Flyer and all of Mahlon's writings on the subject.

Here's the relevant (well, it's all relevant, but it's a 'takeaway") passage in the How To Break In The Engine piece:

At all times we are to remember that heat is the greatest enemy of engine break in, we should try to maintain all engine temperatures in the green, well away from the top of the green arc or red line. This means step climbing the aircraft if necessary, operating with the cowl flaps open or in trail position during cruise flight and being generous with the fuel allocation for the engine. We should not run the engine above 75% power in cruise flight because the B.M.E.P is too great and the likelihood of glazing increases. As you can see, keeping the engine as cool as is practical and at a conducive power setting is the best combination for successful engine break in.

After an engine is overhauled or has a major repair it is run in a test cell to ensure operating characteristics and to begin the break in process. However this process may take as long as 100 hours of operation to complete. You, the pilot, are in control of engine break in for 98 % of the time that it takes to occur. This is a serious responsibility when you consider the expense and aggravation of having to remove, re-hone and re-ring cylinders that have glazed and not broken in.


I'll be doing other things at lower power settings which are critical at this point, principally stalling the cr*p out of her, as well as a lot of slow flight in various configurations. I don't hurt anything doing so.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, what did you get for your phase 1 area?

My current flying club is out of KSGS, but when it's time to fly my -10 someday, I'm either going to fly from Airlake, Red Wing, or a grass strip in Hastings (nice and close to home!)
 
Out of curiosity, what did you get for your phase 1 area?

My current flying club is out of KSGS, but when it's time to fly my -10 someday, I'm either going to fly from Airlake, Red Wing, or a grass strip in Hastings (nice and close to home!)

You might have a hard time with Hastings, but the others are doable.

I got a test area from Airlake, a corridor to take me out of the Mode C veil for MSP, and then down to Mankato, across to Owatonna, and Dodge Center up to Red Wing, and then back to the corridor opening which is about 26 miles SE of Airlake.

If you're using Tim Mahoney as the DAR (you should), he'll give you a one time corridor from KSGS out to the Wipline strip (which nobody I know has actually ever been able to spot) and then down to Airlake.

I THINK you could also get based at Lake Elmo and get an area out toward New Richmond and Osceola, but I didn't care much for the topography and I didn't have a hangar lined up up there, even though that's a LOT better than drive 38 miles each way.

But I can't complain.
 
That's The Grin!

Good for you Bob, working through stuff.

Nice to see your 'RV Grin'! Been wait'n for it.

Keep going buddy, fly, fly, fly.
 
... and made the most unbelievably gorgeous landing of any I've ever made. Perhaps of any anyone has ever made....

Bob

You need to practice harder saying - "...it's a b****h to land - really tough..." This talk of great landings (while true) is just irresponsibly letting the secret out.

You'll remember this flight for a long time - congratulations.

Dan
 
Well done. Well documented "trials and tribulations", leading to ultimate success and satisfaction. Cool
 
RE:FANTASTIC!!!!!!

Bob this is probably at the top of all the top ten threads here at VAF. It has been a great journey for me to follow you all these years. These past few weeks have been a real pleasure to follow the progress. The positive and even the negative. For me it has been a real learning experience. So thank you and thanks to all here at VAF that give valued information.

So congrats and keep the info coming as you sort through your test flight fly off time. Your writing capability will be able to help those that follow get prepared for their own big first flight and flight test time
 
Excellent!!!

Nice job working through the list. Should go great from here on out.

Regarding the break in. My ECI was run at just below full power for the first few hours. At about 1.1 the temps went down and the engine seemed to get stronger. I believe this is when the rings seated. From there, I ran it strong for a few more hours then began normal operation.

You definitely shouldn't have any temp issues up there. Today when I flew to work, it was 110 on the ramp as I ran up. I only climb to 2900 ft. My #4 was running about 407. Very normal for this run. Oil temp was at 194.

Keep up the good work. This has been a great story. Can't wait to hear the beer version at Oshkosh:eek:
 
Just for data points for those from the future who stumbled across this thread: Alex Peterson (and Mark Erickson) dropped in tonight to check the timing on the Lightspeed. All is good.

So I buttoned her up and took her up with intentions of wringing her out. Apparently, you're supposed to check the oil filler door before flying, so the flight was cut short and I throttled back bigtime on the climb to pattern altitude, and made a great landing -- I mean.... it was a b**** to land.

then I checked off "check strength of oil filler door hinge" off the flight test regimen.

A note from Tom Berge tonight:

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']You should not be able to turn 2700 RPM until the wheel pants are installed. 2700 RPM at full power requires a certain flat plate area (drag) and right now your drag is higher due to the lack of socks and shoes.[/FONT]


So here's my question on 70% rated power setting. How is it determined on an engine configured for FP? RPM. If its max power is at 2700 RPM, 70% would be at 18-something. That can't be right. I assume it's a function of RPM, MP, atmosphere, and maybe even prop pitch, but I'll be darned if I can find a formula or table that reveals it.
 
Last edited:
This has come up before.
Van has an article in 21 years of RV-ator.
In my copy, it is on page 292 under PERFORMANCE.
I can scan a copy and email it if needed.

Bottom line:
Add MP and RPM(in hundreds)=% power(read from chart)
42=55%, 45=65%, 48=75%, 51=85%, 54=95%

Example:
22" MP + 26 hundred rpm = 48 = 75%

It's not as precise as the LYC chart but close and
can be easily done in your head.

Tom
 
...
So here's my question on 70% rated power setting. How is it determined on an engine configured for FP? RPM. If its max power is at 2700 RPM, 70% would be at 18-something. That can't be right. I assume it's a function of RPM, MP, atmosphere, and maybe even prop pitch, but I'll be darned if I can find a formula or table that reveals it.

Power is a cube function of RPM. If your engine puts out 100% power at 2700 RPM with a particular fixed pitch propeller, then it will put out 70% at approximately 2400 RPM with that same propeller. Also, there should be a power chart in your engine documentation which will give you percent power if you know RPM and manifold pressure.
 
Power is a cube function of RPM.

???


Power = (torque X rpm) / 5252

There is no cube function to be found anywhere in the above equation. Since the torque curve will tend to be pretty flat over a small change in rpm, the hp at 2400 rpm will approximately equal (maxHP * 2400 / 2700). Nothing cubed about it. :)

PS: 24/27 = 88%
This matches the Lycoming power chart as accurately as it can be read.
 
This is an engineering thumb rule

To double the speed, you must increase the power by a factor of 8, or 2^3. It is a pretty reliable.
 
???


Power = (torque X rpm) / 5252

There is no cube function to be found anywhere in the above equation. Since the torque curve will tend to be pretty flat over a small change in rpm, the hp at 2400 rpm will approximately equal (maxHP * 2400 / 2700). Nothing cubed about it. :)

PS: 24/27 = 88%
This matches the Lycoming power chart as accurately as it can be read.
This is true, if you can get full throttle MP at both 2400 and 2700, which requires a CS prop. With the FP prop, the MP at 2400 will be much lower than the MP at 2700.
 
???


Power = (torque X rpm) / 5252

There is no cube function to be found anywhere in the above equation. Since the torque curve will tend to be pretty flat over a small change in rpm, the hp at 2400 rpm will approximately equal (maxHP * 2400 / 2700). Nothing cubed about it. :)

PS: 24/27 = 88%
This matches the Lycoming power chart as accurately as it can be read.

The torque portion is not linear with rpm, it is closer to a squared function of rpm. Multiply a square of rpm times rpm and you do get a cubic function. More variables at play, with airspeed, etc., but you get the idea. To shove something through the air, the power required is about a cubic function of speed, whether it is a prop or an airplane.
 
EAA Radio would KILL me if I invited you all in for a 15 minute chat on this subject (70% power setting) on the radio show I'm doing there this year, but I've gotta say, it could be THE most entertaining 15 minutes in the entire week!!!
 
Congrats Bob on getting airborne!! And keep the power up as high as possible for break-in. Track your oil consumption as well. It should be readily apparent when the oil consumption stabilizes.
 
Great write up Bob! After all you've been through to get to this point, its about time you got the real payoff. Congratulations!
 
The torque portion is not linear with rpm, it is closer to a squared function of rpm.

What can I say? This is simply and wildly wrong. Look at any typical Lycoming dyno chart over the rpm range mentioned. Heck, look at any dyno chart. Then get back to me. :D
 
This is true, if you can get full throttle MP at both 2400 and 2700, which requires a CS prop. With the FP prop, the MP at 2400 will be much lower than the MP at 2700.

Kevin, that is a good point. Bob is running a FP prop, so he won't be able to get full MP at 2400 rpm.

Gotta run, I'll do the calc's later.
 
Yah, torque curve is pretty flat over the normal RPM range in a lyc. So, using a constant torque for T*RPM/5252 puts you in the ballpark pretty close. Close enough for the planes I date.
 
???


Power = (torque X rpm) / 5252

There is no cube function to be found anywhere in the above equation. Since the torque curve will tend to be pretty flat over a small change in rpm, the hp at 2400 rpm will approximately equal (maxHP * 2400 / 2700). Nothing cubed about it. :)

PS: 24/27 = 88%
This matches the Lycoming power chart as accurately as it can be read.

Actually, 24/27 is closer to .89 (RPM ratio), and 0.89 cubed is about .70... 70%(Power ratio). Your equation is valid too. It's just that torque required to turn a propeller goes up with the square of the RPM, so torque x RPM is proportional to RPM^2 x RPM, or RPM^3.
 
15 minutes?

EAA Radio would KILL me if I invited you all in for a 15 minute chat on this subject (70% power setting) on the radio show I'm doing there this year, but I've gotta say, it could be THE most entertaining 15 minutes in the entire week!!!

Bob, if you invited the board for a 15 minute chat, it would be the most maddening 5 hours you've ever witnessed. :D
 
Back
Top