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

When you setup your EIS did you use the correct resistor for the fuel pressure sender? There were two different ones in my package. I had to use the one for the lower pressure. You probably did but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

I'm just now putting juice through the wires on my plane and am in the process of programming my EIS and EFIS. Still hooking up senders so thats why the resistor thing is currently on my mind.
 
There are two things that can be depended on when speaking to a group of pilots. First, at least one of them is going to lecture you on something you are doing that they would not. The second thing you can absolutely depend on is that if you dont do it their way, and admit you were reckless and ignorant prior to the education they just provided...you are going to die and likely take a bus load of children and puppies with you.

You were in the plane...you made the call...you survived and I'm ok with that. Now, if the lecturing can settle down a bit, someone will probably come by and help you troubleshoot the mechanical issues. Maybe.

Come on gents, give the guy a break. **** pilots....



:)

Couldn't have said it better myself. ^_^
 
Bob---as you know I'm not a builderor one of you pilot guys, but I will chime on on the oil leak problem. From experience of a friends F1, there has been a pesky small leak from day one, coming from somewhere near the mags, or around a cylinder base, along with a very small amount in the breather tube. Having cleaned everything off, and rechecked bolts and such, its still hard to determine exactly where its coming from. NOT ALOT of oil mind you, just a drop or 2 or 3, but in the cowling, it looks bigger than it actually is. He has around 150 hrs not, and it has gotten MUCH better. Perhaps yours is still getting broken in, and sealed up.

As far as the engine running, I'll pass that off the real engine guys. But---how much of that oil is in the breather tube, and where does that tube exit?

Congrats on a job well done!
It runs and flys---now you can tweek it!
Tom
 
Going over Sunday's stats from Tom Berge:

I got 2110 on the static run-up. Seemed a bit low, but then again it seemed to accelerate fine and climbed out as I would expect a fixed pitch prop to do. Don?t worry about manifold pressure right now, it?s the RPM that matter. I never charted the MP because that was not of interest. During flight, I had no problem getting 2500 rpm, the plane performed fine. The numbers I recorded:



Static - 2110

Lift off ? 55 KT

Power off stall ? 43 KT EFIS, 40 steam gauge

Skid ball centered

Oil pressure ? 79

Oil temp ? 195

OAT ? 67

Fuel pressure ? 36

Voltage ? 14.2

Amp ? 10.7

CHT - #1 ? 368 #2 ? 373 #3 ? 373 #4 ? 355

EGT - #1 ? 960 #2 ? 1180 #3 ? 1202 #4 ? 1224


Sometime today, perhaps, I'll put the laptop on the GRT EIS 4000 and get some better numbers on the runup and static RPM check, maybe doing a HS taxi run.
 
Bob this morning I flew my O-360 with a 85'' FP Sen prop and got 2150-2175 static but I could get slightly more if I lean it. 1350ft elevation 70f.

On the roll before liftoff I got about 2225-2250 and at 110kt climb about 2300-2325. Forgot to look at MP.....

My plane beats Vans numbers so my gut fealing is that my engine is making rated power with my setup.

I have one mag and one PMAG.
 
Last edited:
Either your MP gauge is not reading correctly, or you have a blockage in the induction system. Check the air filter for debris, check that the throttle plate is really full open at full throttle, look for gaskets that got sucked in and are blocking the intake, etc.
 
I'm going to run it up later today and put a computer on the engine monitor so I can relay some dependable numbers. Relying on memory isn't working for me at the moment.

The plan for today is:

a. Wipe up the oil and check fittings and sump bolts
b. Blow out the manifold pressure line and check the fittings
c. Check the fuel vent(s)
d. Repeat fuel flow tests at the fuel pump
e. Remove FAB, check for foreign objects and check for throttle plate position
f. Remove and inspect boost pump filter and reinstall.
g. Remove and check spark plugs and reconfirm proper orientation of all plug wires.
h. Reinstall cowling, attach computer to serial output on GRT EIS 4000 and run up engine. Store data (The EISLog program, by the way, is also giving me fits. It accepts the data but when you save it and reopen the file, the data is gone.)
i. Find a 60hz mercury vapor light and compare RPM to prop "stop" position.
j. Drink beer

I wish this were taking place in my own hangar, where all the tools and air compressor is. But, alas...
 
Last edited:
It's kind of hard to say since I haven't seen the plumbing here.

manifold_connection_may_3_2011.jpg
 
SoUnds like you have a good plan. I still like Dan B's idea of tying the tail down and running up to full power with your EM going. You will then have a base line to compare to before you start examining things.
When you get the cowl off, check your throttle to insure it is hitting the stop too.
Good luck.
 
Make sure your breather is free and clear of obstructions. High crankcase pressure can cause oil blow by through the gaskets and reduce the performance of the engine.
 
Two important discoveries so far:


1. The MP gauge was not configured properly in the EIS 4000. I entered the correct code for the GRT gauge and it reads 28.7. Current barometer at KLVN: 29.68

2. I now believe the fuel pressure alarm was actually a fuel FLOW alarm. I had set fuel flow max for 19. But FloScan has not been configured yet for sensitivity and this alarm is unnecessary for now (it's only purpose is to warn of fuel line leaks)

I am continuing to work down the list.
 
Two important discoveries so far:


1. The MP gauge was not configured properly in the EIS 4000. I entered the correct code for the GRT gauge and it reads 28.7. Current barometer at KLVN: 29.68

What was it before you made the change? If the difference is what your were seeing in flight, there may be no reason to suspect a problem in that area.
 
Two important discoveries so far:


1. The MP gauge was not configured properly in the EIS 4000. I entered the correct code for the GRT gauge and it reads 28.7. Current barometer at KLVN: 29.68

2. I now believe the fuel pressure alarm was actually a fuel FLOW alarm. I had set fuel flow max for 19. But FloScan has not been configured yet for sensitivity and this alarm is unnecessary for now (it's only purpose is to warn of fuel line leaks)

I am continuing to work down the list.

Your manifold pressure is probably about right. the local altimeter is corrected to sea level pressure, the MP gauge is not. With you being ~1000 ft above slp, it is probably close now.

Sounds like you are making good progress.
 
Two important discoveries so far:


1. The MP gauge was not configured properly in the EIS 4000. I entered the correct code for the GRT gauge and it reads 28.7. Current barometer at KLVN: 29.68

An altimeter setting of 29.68 at an elevation of 960 ft implies an ambient pressure of 28.66 in HG. Your MP is now reading very accurately at this pressure.
 
(Cross posted from the blog)

As crappy as yesterday was in terms of operating and diagnosing the performance of a new airplane, today was much different as some of the classiest people on Planet RV stepped forward with great assistance.

Unbeknownst to me, Stein Bruch stopped by the hangar -- did I mention he's letting me use his hangar during Phase 1 testing? -- and gave the plane a pretty complete onceover. He reported that the left magneto is fine, thought the plane was well built, and identified a few areas that might contribute to the heavy wing Tom Berge noted on the test flight a week ago. One was a twist in the elevator alignment, and the other was a slight flap misalignment from left to right.

There's nothing to be done about the former, but the latter can be adjusted. But first I'll fly and see the extent to which the wing is heavy. I adjusted the aileron alignment the other day. I didn't notice a heavy wing on that first flight I made, but I was busy with other stuff.

Stein also noted -- correctly -- that the throttle cable is very stiff. We looked for kinks in it -- Stein stopped by on his way home from work, too -- but didn't find anything. So I'm going to try another cable. Question: Who's got another cable they'd like to let me try out?

As I was driving down to Lakeville, Alex Peterson called (actually, he called earlier and I called him back) while he was driving up north. He offered to fly down Monday evening and look at the RPM problem. But, he said, "you may not have a problem. The engine may not be performing as poorly as you think." Indeed, I do want to get the RPM indicator cross-checked for accuracy.

We also talked about the manifold pressure problem and he suspected a bad gauge and explained to me what it should be reading.

What was especially illuminating was when Alex talked about the noises I heard. He indicated that when the wind is blowing from a certain direction, he gets a "popping" sound from the air vent ports on the side of the fuselage. What he described fit perfectly with what I was hearing yesterday and probably wasn't backfiring at all.

Anyway, I tackled the manifold pressure problem first in an all day/night session this afternoon/tonight and found that I had failed to properly configure the engine monitor. I was supposed to enter some code that was on the Grand Rapids EIS 4000 manifold pressure box into the engine monitor. Once I did that, the MP indication on the monitor with the engine off read the barometric pressure indicated when I set the barometer to zero. That was a big one out of the way and means the manifold pressure problem I had was not an engine problem. Oh, I also blew out the manifold pressure lines and they were fine.

I also realized that the fuel pressure alarm that went off while climbing out of the pattern yesterday was not a fuel pressure alarm at all; it was a fuel flow alarm. I had configured the engine monitor to indicate an alarm whenever the fuel flow exceeded 19 gph. It was supposed to alert me to a leak in the system, but the FloScan module hasn't been calibrated yet so it was a worthless alarm. So, again, what I thought was an engine problem was not.

I took the filtered air box off and looked at the throttle plate to confirm that it opens complete. It does. Reinstalled the airbox and moved on.

I wanted to remove the fuel filter on the high pressure fuel pump but I didn't get around to it. However, I did repeat the fuel flow test by running the boost pump and pumping fuel into a five-gallon container at the fuel servo. It came out to about 43 gallons per hour, which pretty well matched the FloScan fuel flow indicator on the engine monitor. So all was good there. That number is actually better than it was when I ran a similar test a summer ago.

As far as the oil, I'm pretty sure now the oil was coming out of the breather tube, so I wiped up what I could and reinstalled the cowling, pulled the plane out, and hooked up my laptop to the engine monitor serial output, started the engine and went about seeing where things stood.

Here are some of the things I found, in no order of importance:

-- The Lightspeed tach reading and the manifold tach reading matched. I got about a 100 RPM drop when operating only on the mag. That's about 40 more than yesterday. I really should've leaned out the engine and cleaned some carbon, but I didn't. I got about a 20 RPM drop operating only on the the Lightspeed.
-- On runup, the static RPM reading was about 2020. About 120 more than I got yesterday,and about 90 less than what Tom Berge recorded last Sunday.
-- Fuel pressure was reading 36 with the boost pump on.
-- I took the runway and accelerated. I did not hear the infamous "noises" and developed 2105 indicated RPM (and increasing) when I pulled power when I reached 41 knots. It appeared to accelerate fine. It was a lovely night. If not for the operating limitations,I might have considered going flying.
-- On that run, EGTs were: 1143/1086/1062/1094
Cylinder temps were: 354/318/325/320
Outside air temperature: 80
Fuel flow: 12.9 GPH
Manifold pressure: 28.5
Fuel pressure: 36
Oil pressure: 81
Oil temp: 149
Total time from throttle forward to throttle back: 9 seconds

I taxied off the runway and back and tried it again. On the next run, I was at 2120 RPM when I shut down at 43 knots.

-- On that run, EGTs were: 1131/1085/1072/1103
Cylinder temps were: 346/302/313/315
Outside air temperature: 80
Fuel flow: 17.1 GPH
Manifold pressure: 28.4
Fuel pressure: 36
Oil pressure: 81
Oil temp: 164
Total time from throttle forward to throttle back: 10 seconds

During taxi back to the hangar:
Fuel flow: 5.7
Fuel pressure: 38 (left the boost pump on)
Manifold pressure: 13.3
It took 846 RPM to feed 14 volts (strobes, all lights, and all systems on)

I did try to use the GRT-recommended system of checking the RPM by trying to "freeze" the propeller at 600 RPM with a 60hz (or is it Mz, I forget) light in the background and I could not get it to do that at any number of RPM settings. I'll have to find an optical tachometer somewhere.

Total testing time: 21 minutes 33 seconds.

I did not notice any immediate pools of oil in the bottom cowling or around the breather tube.

I feel pretty good about these numbers. The static RPM is still a little low, but as I said, we need to doublecheck the tach readings.

If anyone wants the spreadsheet with all of the numbers, just holler.
 
Last edited:
Good report Bob - you're workign through the issues one by one, and discovering for the most part that several of the "issues" you had were essentially false alarms. i Hope that folks really read and understand your reports - they are valuable - because people sometimes do dumb things on test flights (aborts without enough runway, emergency landings, panic-induced LOC) due MERELY to instrumentation funnies.

Your low RPM is still a puzzler, of course, so keep on picking away at those details and find the cause!

Paul

(Oil leaks? "If its a Lycoming, and its not dripping, you forgot to put oil in it!" Well, not really, but most people have some little drips and you may or may not eventually find the cause. Think of it as a small offering to the lubrication gods....)
 
. . .Stein also noted -- correctly -- that the throttle cable is very stiff. We looked for kinks -- Stein stopped by on his way home from work, too -- in it but didn't find anything. So I'm going to try another cable. Question: Who's got another cable they'd like to let me try out?. . ..

Bob, I hae a 50.5" cable. this is for a quadrant. If it will work with your push-pull, let me know and I will send it your way.
 
OK, Alton. I don't have my plans handy so I can't recall what the 7A throttle length required is. I know the one I have (I have the stock setup) had plenty of length to it. I'll check today when I go down. Of course, all my plans and drawings and stuff are now 35 miles away. Ugh.
 
13. (Engine off). I don't quite understand, though, why that's significant if the unit was basically inoperative before I entered the code.

If it had read aprox 19~20 static before re-coding it could be taken as a positive indication of normal MP in flight. A prior reading of 13 provides no such confirmation, only (as you say) an indication of an inoperative instrument.

There's a temptation to think all is normal based on reasonable MP readings during the 9 second taxi runs. However, it doesn't explain 90 knots and 19" MP at full throttle as you were heading for the practice area. We can discount the 19" MP, but 90 knots at WOT? It suggests a significant lack of power.....and such power loss is often intermittent.

Remember, we only know what you tell us and diagnosis quality depends on it. Is 90 knots at full throttle accurate?
 
. . .I did try to use the GRT-recommended system of checking the RPM by trying to "freeze" the propeller at 600 RPM with a 60hz (or is it Mz, I forget) light in the background and I could not get it to do that at any number of RPM settings. I'll have to find an optical tachometer somewhere. . . .

bob, hit up some Remote controled airplane buddies. I am sure one of them will have one if they are still flying glow fuel.
 
There's a temptation to think all is normal based on reasonable MP readings during the 9 second taxi runs. However, it doesn't explain 90 knots and 19" MP at full throttle as you were heading for the practice area. We can discount the 19" MP, but 90 knots at WOT? It suggests a significant lack of power.....and such power loss is often intermittent.

Remember, we only know what you tell us and diagnosis quality depends on it. Is 90 knots at full throttle accurate?

I believe I answered that question upstream. The integrity of the numbers can't be determined because I didn't have a computer connected to the engine monitor. I'm only going by memory which may well be faulty, certainly more faulty than what the computer data could/would reveal.

Poor engine monitor data (incorrect interpretation of an alarm, for example) also may have colored the flight attitude interpretation. I was doing about 10 things at the 1 second I looked at the numbers, and immediately circled back and reduced throttle to lose speed before re-entering the pattern. I wanted to be at 80 knots on downwind.

As I may have indicated earlier, I was above Vfe when I did so, after throttling back and it took awhile (perhaps 45 seconds but, perhaps not) to slow the plane to the point I could deploy flaps, reduce to 80 and enter the pattern. That would seem to be an indication that there's at least a POSSIBILITY that the original observation of having the throttle firewalled and only at 90 may have been in error. I'm also still getting used to the picture out the window.

Today, I'll work through the remaining items on my original list. Tomorrow, Alex will be by and we'll put a light on the Lightspeed to confirm that it's timed properly and sit down and analyze the RPM readings a bit more.
 
bob, hit up some Remote controled airplane buddies. I am sure one of them will have one if they are still flying glow fuel.

I stopped by the big hobby shop in the area the other day and they didn't have any. I'll try another one today. I see them online so I could always just order one. There isn't going to be any flying for awhile anyway. Minnesota has this whole "prevailing south wind" thing going right now (normally northwest/southeast) and the winds are just roaring across flyover country.
 
Bob, last November I was on a cross-country trip when I thought the engine had a slight roughness. I did a mag check and when on the mag the INDICATED RPM dropped a lot. Actual amount I have somewhere but perhaps 600-800 RPM.

I also detected a significant roughness or so I thought. After mucho troubleshooting at home, the problem was a failed capacitor between the ignition switch and the RMI engine monitor.

The engine roughness was all in my head. It never appeared again so I apparently imagined that symptom when I saw a huge RPM drop on the RMI.
 
I did try to use the GRT-recommended system of checking the RPM by trying to "freeze" the propeller at 600 RPM with a 60hz (or is it Mz, I forget) light in the background and I could not get it to do that at any number of RPM settings.

60 Hz?60 cycles per second. Be sure to try this with only a fluorescent light that's powered by a wall plug (not battery). Flashlights, incandescents, and LEDs won't work.
 
You're the Man Bob

Your growth and understanding is what all of us common builder builders go through at that stage and the way you have handled it is exemplary. Your taking control of the situation was exactly the right thing to do. Your judgement is fine, well done.

Bob Axsom
 
Your growth and understanding is what all of us common builder builders go through at that stage and the way you have handled it is exemplary. Your taking control of the situation was exactly the right thing to do. Your judgement is fine, well done.

Bob Axsom

Thanks, Bob. I can't tell you how much that means to me. It doesn't hurt having good friends.
 
Today I found a loose KB-000 straight fuel pump fitting on the inlet to the fuel pump. Unfortunately my AC43.13 is at the other hangar. Can anyone tell me what the torque value would be here? Also, the plans (OP-32) does not show any crush washer here as with tbe KB-090-T fitting on the downstream side of the pump. Is that correct? I noticed the problem when I saw what appeared to be weeping around the fitting, although it looked like oil. Any chance this might contribute to my reduced static RPM?
 
fuel pump

All the fittings I have seen are straight thread fittings with an o ring and jam nut. Pitts and Piper both use standard AN "bulkhead fittings" Others use special fittings but the same principal. No torque value beccause you are tightening the jam nut against the o ring. You might get a torque reading with a torque wrench with a minimum reading of 20" pounds.
 
fitting

AN 833-6 for a 90 degree elbow and AN 924-6 for the nut. I don't have a number for the o ring. This is a very critical area that has caused inflight fires in two Rockets, one was fatal.
 
Roger that. I tightened the crud out of it. I'm thinking I should pull it off to doublecheck there was an O-ring on it. It was a long time ago and I don't remember how Van's delivered the part. Better safe than...
 
static r/m

Mahlon Russell has stated on the lycoming forum that the four cylinder Lycomings rarely ever make rated power on a dyno. One of several reasons he gives is the tightness of a newly overhauled engine that has not broken in yet.
If you have a tachometer that reads to 10 r/m or less: If you take three sensenich props and do a static check, all three will probably be slightly different. This would also be true of Catto ar any other prop.
The difference between your two recent runs is probably oil temperature, expecially if you are using straight mineral oil.
Some of the wood/composite props twist enough at takeoff to flatten the pitch just a little. Most also have thinner tips which equates to higher static r/m.
The sensenich metal just doesn't do very well on static r/m.
If you are now consistently getting around 2100 at start of takeoff roll, I would put some time on the engine and see if the static goes up a bit when you have ten hours on the engine.
 
Yes, I'm on mineral oil.


But that sounds great. Alex will reconfirm that the Lightspeed is healthy tomorrow night (I'm sure it is) and rumor has it these 30 mph crosswinds will leave overnight tonite. Today, I'm reconfiguring the engine monitor and running simulated test flights in the comfort of the hangar.
 
Wow! Bob,

you're beginning to sound like a real engineer. By George, I think you've got it!

Systematic, careful, inquisitive, analytical, persistent, critical, confident. You are getting close to the FORCE Luke, err Bob...

Congratulations...:)
 
Electronic ignition

Hi Bob

''What he described fit perfectly with what I was hearing yesterday and probably wasn't backfiring at all.''

But possible
--------------------
You mentionned that you had a lightspeed electronic ignition installed so is it with a direct crank sensor or the Hall Effect system??

If it is with the Hall Effect, remove the connector to the Hall Effect module and clean it with contact cleaner, if dirty it will cause the engine to backfired a lot...( These are instructions from Klaus Savier himself following a similar problem I had with my RV-4...It is now as a minimum part of my annual inspection or done every 25 hrs..)

Hasn't happen since..

Good luck

Bruno
 
Hi Bob

''What he described fit perfectly with what I was hearing yesterday and probably wasn't backfiring at all.''

But possible
--------------------
You mentionned that you had a lightspeed electronic ignition installed so is it with a direct crank sensor or the Hall Effect system??

If it is with the Hall Effect, remove the connector to the Hall Effect module and clean it with contact cleaner, if dirty it will cause the engine to backfired a lot...( These are instructions from Klaus Savier himself following a similar problem I had with my RV-4...It is now as a minimum part of my annual inspection or done every 25 hrs..)

Hasn't happen since..

Good luck

Bruno

Direct crank. There's nothing I can find in any of the data or checking that suggests now that there's any problem with the ignition system. I've pretty much ruled that out. Two accelerations on the runway last night without any "noise" problems pretty much convinced me .

I've actually been really impressed with the Lightspeed.

But we'll confirm it with a timing light tomorrow.
 
As a postscript, Mahlon reports the numbers on Saturday's run look "OK and normal."

He says I should be able to get 2700 in level flight below 4500 ASL. If it turns more, he says, the prop pitch is light and if it is less the prop pitch is too steep.

Mahlon is awesome.
 
Today I found a loose KB-000 straight fuel pump fitting on the inlet to the fuel pump. Unfortunately my AC43.13 is at the other hangar. Can anyone tell me what the torque value would be here? Also, the plans (OP-32) does not show any crush washer here as with tbe KB-090-T fitting on the downstream side of the pump. Is that correct? I noticed the problem when I saw what appeared to be weeping around the fitting, although it looked like oil. Any chance this might contribute to my reduced static RPM?

Jim Stanton is absolutely correct about these fuel pump fittings. The O ring is critical and the jam nut must be tight. I doubt static rpm can be affected by the torque value of the nut unless it was a copious leak which it appears it is not.

Initial static rpm will be low due to a new engine being not as loose as it will become. 2100-2200 would be acceptable in my book. My catto 3 blade never came up to 2200 static but it did top at 2750 WOT at 8000' (about 75% power). It is the nature of RV performance, the speed range is so wide.

Bob, you've written so much about the tales of a test pilot you will be able to pull it together in the form of book and it will become a best seller on the NYT's list and you be able to retire early. :)
 
Direct crank. There's nothing I can find in any of the data or checking that suggests now that there's any problem with the ignition system.

Two known issues which take only seconds to check:

1. Pull the two fast-on connectors on the back of the coil and examine for black burn marks. The connectors must squeeze the tabs very firmly or they will burn.

2. The coax cable from the box to the coil is RG-58 or RG-400? RG-58 doesn't have a high enough temperature rating for use under the cowl....the center conductor migrates through the core insulator.

....fuel pump fittings. The O ring is critical and the jam nut must be tight. I doubt static rpm can be affected by the torque value of the nut unless it was a copious leak which it appears it is not.

A typical KB-000 straight fitting doesn't have a jam nut, just the o-ring. The angled fittings have a jam nut so they can be clocked to point in a particular direction.

Bob, please do pull that fitting and confirm you have a good o-ring installed. Good means no cuts or pinched spots. Use a little lube on the o-ring when you re-assemble. I don't know the book torque for a straight thread fitting, but it will seat firmly....nothing squishy about it. After it's tight, examine the perimeter to make sure there is no o-ring extrusion.

A leak here has 20-30 psi positive pressure with the boost pump running, and the leak is above the exhaust pipe. It's probably the #1 cause of inflight fire.

The fitting is under suction with the boost pump off, so a leak will introduce a stream of small bubbles into the engine-driven pump and fuel servo. Air in the pump would reduce pump volume and pressure. Air in the servo and lines would upset fuel metering.
 
Last edited:
Intake induction seals?

As a postscript, Mahlon reports the numbers on Saturday's run look "OK and normal."

He says I should be able to get 2700 in level flight below 4500 ASL. If it turns more, he says, the prop pitch is light and if it is less the prop pitch is too steep.

Mahlon is awesome.

Hi Bob,
I read through most of the troubleshooting posts but not all- so sorry if I'm repeating here- take a good Look at the in-take tube gaskets. A slight leak may not show up on a run up but will definitely show up on full power.

Yep, Mahlon is awesome!
 
I just read every post in this thread ...

Bob,
That's the first time I've ever read all posts in a 10 pager. Those of us a scant few weeks away from first flight HUGELY appreciate your willingness to share your continued and detailed troubleshooting. This thread has been terrifically instructional.
 
Two known issues which take only seconds to check:

1. Pull the two fast-on connectors on the back of the coil and examine for black burn marks. The connectors must squeeze the tabs very firmly or they will burn.

2. The coax cable from the box to the coil is RG-58 or RG-400? RG-58 doesn't have a high enough temperature rating for use under the cowl....the center conductor migrates through the core insulator.

By coil, you mean the red cubes on the (usually) top of the engine case?

Also, I don't know if the coax is 58 or 400. I just went with what Mattituck shipped me. What's the identifying marks that distinguish. I'm certain I've got some 400 around here somewhere.

Bob, please do pull that fitting and confirm you have a good o-ring installed. Good means no cuts or pinched spots. Use a little lube on the o-ring when you re-assemble. I don't know the book torque for a straight thread fitting, but it will seat firmly....nothing squishy about it. After it's tight, examine the perimeter to make sure there is no o-ring extrusion.

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?
 
By coil, you mean the red cubes on the (usually) top of the engine case?

Also, I don't know if the coax is 58 or 400. I just went with what Mattituck shipped me. What's the identifying marks that distinguish. I'm certain I've got some 400 around here somewhere.....

It's already RG400 and the connections look pretty good, so most probably not that as a core issue, though anything is possible.

Cheers,
Stein
 
fuel pressure per EIS ?

The value in the EIS when shipped for Aux (s) is 100. Probably not the correct value for your system. Fuel pressure of 36 is unlikely as I believe was pointed out earlier. Just as you researched and fixed the Aux setting for your manifold pressure I think you can correct or verify the Aux that you connected your fuel pressure sensor line to. The earlier comment to check for the correct resistor used in the line is good also. After you research the correct settings and check the EIS you can test the EIS with the engine off; just run the electric boost pump with the mix off and the throttle closed. My boost pump produces almost exactly the same pressure as my engine pump (26 psi). After the test you can check for fuel leaks too. If a small leak occurs have a helper turn the pump on and off while you watch the various connections for the offender. Use caution of course so that the raw fuel can't be ignited.
Dale
Superior IO-360, GRT EIS & HX
 
The value in the EIS when shipped for Aux (s) is 100. Probably not the correct value for your system. Fuel pressure of 36 is unlikely as I believe was pointed out earlier. Just as you researched and fixed the Aux setting for your manifold pressure I think you can correct or verify the Aux that you connected your fuel pressure sensor line to. The earlier comment to check for the correct resistor used in the line is good also. After you research the correct settings and check the EIS you can test the EIS with the engine off; just run the electric boost pump with the mix off and the throttle closed. My boost pump produces almost exactly the same pressure as my engine pump (26 psi). After the test you can check for fuel leaks too. If a small leak occurs have a helper turn the pump on and off while you watch the various connections for the offender. Use caution of course so that the raw fuel can't be ignited.
Dale
Superior IO-360, GRT EIS & HX

will check. The resistor is wired in fine, but I have not found any direction in the directions specifically for any needed input for the the nSF or nOFF of the auxiliary input I'm using for that sensor (in this case AUX2)

I've dropped a note to Sandy for clarification.

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
 
Back
Top