Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
TSwezey?
- Thread starter fmarino1976
- Start date
Bud's Wheeler...
Not to be anal or such, but Bud has said (and actually told me directly) that his Wheeler had over 700 hours on it when the fuel line failed and it burned into the ground almost taking them with it. That amount of hours tends to validate his approach.
Another thing, in looking at the pix that Geared Drives have on their web site and in viewing the engine package at Oshkosh last year, I noticed that it appears that they are using the stainless steel auto type of fuel hoses from the firewall to the engine. I bought some of that line (auto) and was gonna use it in my -10 for some short runs. My A&P was a bit concerned about that and called around and got some opinions from two other A&Ps. They ALL said that using auto type SS braided lines was asking for problems. They all recommended Aeroquip style aviation hoses as they are much better quality.
Comparing the two types of hoses, side by side, you can really see the difference.
Something to think about!
Not to be anal or such, but Bud has said (and actually told me directly) that his Wheeler had over 700 hours on it when the fuel line failed and it burned into the ground almost taking them with it. That amount of hours tends to validate his approach.
Another thing, in looking at the pix that Geared Drives have on their web site and in viewing the engine package at Oshkosh last year, I noticed that it appears that they are using the stainless steel auto type of fuel hoses from the firewall to the engine. I bought some of that line (auto) and was gonna use it in my -10 for some short runs. My A&P was a bit concerned about that and called around and got some opinions from two other A&Ps. They ALL said that using auto type SS braided lines was asking for problems. They all recommended Aeroquip style aviation hoses as they are much better quality.
Comparing the two types of hoses, side by side, you can really see the difference.
Something to think about!
The comments here about stock heat range plugs and 92 octane fuel being ok with the supercharger just plain scare me. The results so far speak for themselves unfortunately and calls into question the most basic knowledge level of the vendor in this area. Without testing, how would he know?
I'd be very concerned also about not having programming capability of the entire MAP operating range. This is totally puzzling to me. Operation from say 7-8 inches (idle and power off descent) to 30 inches for atmo engines and up to say 40 inches for the supercharged ones would be mandatory.
Sorry to be blunt, but there is way too much guessing going on here and I wonder at how ignition timing curves are being developed for these engines?
Please be careful up there guys. This style of development is extremely dangerous and needs to be preceded by a lot more ground running and tuning by someone truly knowledgeable IMO.
Running cast 10.9 pistons with a supercharger on 92 octane fuel- what can I say- Don't do it. It can only lead to tears.
I'd be very concerned also about not having programming capability of the entire MAP operating range. This is totally puzzling to me. Operation from say 7-8 inches (idle and power off descent) to 30 inches for atmo engines and up to say 40 inches for the supercharged ones would be mandatory.
Sorry to be blunt, but there is way too much guessing going on here and I wonder at how ignition timing curves are being developed for these engines?
Please be careful up there guys. This style of development is extremely dangerous and needs to be preceded by a lot more ground running and tuning by someone truly knowledgeable IMO.
Running cast 10.9 pistons with a supercharger on 92 octane fuel- what can I say- Don't do it. It can only lead to tears.
Last edited:
There have been numerous engine failures on various V8 powered experimentals and I've heard some scary stories through the grapevine of what was behind them.
Many have the mistaken notion that they can bolt on a cheap crate engine and go flying. This is highly unlikely, at least for very long.
Time and time again, I see people with no clue about engines and tuning launching off into the unknown. Some people have been working with these engines for years and are on their 3rd or 4th one after multiple failures. Within the lines, I see the words "engine expert" mentioned. Jack Roush is an engine expert. Most of these guys having failures with 5-10 hours are obviously not.
From a safety perspective, treat this development with the utmost respect is all I can say:
Expect an engine failure at any time
Self brief yourself before every takeoff on what you will do- maintain airspeed, what switches to throw etc. Emergency procedures need to be as instinctive as possible because when it really happens, it will still never be exactly as you train for.
Mentally prepare yourself that you may not be able to make the runway and that you will damage your plane. At all costs, you will maintain best glide speed down to the flare.
Never conduct the test flight unless everything is 100% and never unless you have tested things first on the ground as much as you can. You never NEED to go flying.
Don't conduct this sort of test flying from a short runway surrounded by trees, houses or obstructions. Simply a bad idea, leaving you no options if things go wrong.
Remain overhead the airport at least 2000 feet AGL. XC trips can come much later in the program
Watch all the engine instrumentation like a hawk. If anything does not feel or look right, get the thing on the ground a find out why. Don't diagnose in the air.
Use test cards for each flight with a pre-flight plan of what you want to accomplish for the flight. Don't just fly around.
Get the cowling off after every flight and check everything. Don't assume anything is ok without checking.
Many have the mistaken notion that they can bolt on a cheap crate engine and go flying. This is highly unlikely, at least for very long.
Time and time again, I see people with no clue about engines and tuning launching off into the unknown. Some people have been working with these engines for years and are on their 3rd or 4th one after multiple failures. Within the lines, I see the words "engine expert" mentioned. Jack Roush is an engine expert. Most of these guys having failures with 5-10 hours are obviously not.
From a safety perspective, treat this development with the utmost respect is all I can say:
Expect an engine failure at any time
Self brief yourself before every takeoff on what you will do- maintain airspeed, what switches to throw etc. Emergency procedures need to be as instinctive as possible because when it really happens, it will still never be exactly as you train for.
Mentally prepare yourself that you may not be able to make the runway and that you will damage your plane. At all costs, you will maintain best glide speed down to the flare.
Never conduct the test flight unless everything is 100% and never unless you have tested things first on the ground as much as you can. You never NEED to go flying.
Don't conduct this sort of test flying from a short runway surrounded by trees, houses or obstructions. Simply a bad idea, leaving you no options if things go wrong.
Remain overhead the airport at least 2000 feet AGL. XC trips can come much later in the program
Watch all the engine instrumentation like a hawk. If anything does not feel or look right, get the thing on the ground a find out why. Don't diagnose in the air.
Use test cards for each flight with a pre-flight plan of what you want to accomplish for the flight. Don't just fly around.
Get the cowling off after every flight and check everything. Don't assume anything is ok without checking.
Last edited:
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
YES, Yes, and yes.
That is what was done for our flights. And Savannah is a great place to test with two large runways and acres upon acres of tarmac and taxiways. I would also add practicing emergency landings many times beforehand in a similar plane. Alex gave us great emergency training. This where the RV-10 excels as a test bed for these type engines. It is extremely maneuverable and very stable. I would also use your ears, if it does not sound right then get on the ground. I think the our furthest flight was about three miles from the airport.
Our problems started after about twenty five hours on it and when MP was put past 23" upon taking off. My conversations with Tracy(developer of the ECU) recently has helped me develop a better plan for testing and programming the unit and easing our way up towards WOT.
Thank you Ross. I think the picture is becoming clear. A lot of grief could have been avoided if COLDER PLUGS and only HIGH OCTANE fuel was used. Tracy Crook has the fuel mapping well in hand and the timing curves are working.
My engine is not supercharged and have not had any problems since I upgraded both of the above. From now on I will go up to 98 oct unleaded from 96 oct unleaded. It is not readily available in Central Australia.
I like to use the O2 sensor to read fuel/air ratio as it is a lot more sensitive than EGTs and you know instantly when you are rich or lean of peak EGT.
For general information Robinson Aviation has 7 SeaBees converted to GM LS engines with no problems that I know about.
A friend in Queensland has a SPITFIRE flying with LS1 and EC2/EM2 controller and monitor.
My engine is not supercharged and have not had any problems since I upgraded both of the above. From now on I will go up to 98 oct unleaded from 96 oct unleaded. It is not readily available in Central Australia.
I like to use the O2 sensor to read fuel/air ratio as it is a lot more sensitive than EGTs and you know instantly when you are rich or lean of peak EGT.
For general information Robinson Aviation has 7 SeaBees converted to GM LS engines with no problems that I know about.
A friend in Queensland has a SPITFIRE flying with LS1 and EC2/EM2 controller and monitor.
Well after many months and hernia surgery the beast has its engine back on. The supercharger was taken off and a new lighter fly wheel was put on. We should be 35-40lbs lighter now. I have to head to Naples, Florida for work for about a week so it will be a couple more weeks before we are flying again.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
I would have had it running today but one our baffle brackets which is attached to the radiator broke and I had to get the bracket welded. It was dropped off at my house this evening. If the weather is bad I will have time tomorrow to go put the radiator on and start her up. Don't checked everything today again! I have had to most of the work by myself. My building partner has been busy with work. We took a total of 35 lbs off by removing the supercharger and its associated hardware. It will roll down the runway this weekend! It might not take off but it will roll down the runway!
Atta Boy Todd! You're moving in the right direction. Less lead weight needed for ballast, but most of all you lose all that un-necessary complexity (read reduced reliability). The simplest solution will always be the best for long term reliability. Hopefully this next batch of flights will work out well.
Thanks for the update and good luck on the next flight.
Be Safe,
Stein
The engine fired right up today! It kind of scared me. I actually put everything back together without any leaks! I didn't have time to do any high throttle runs. I never really went to the airport because I was "working" all day. Hopefully it can leave the ground in the next few days. Weather and work schedules permitting.
Putting the KISS principle to work. 35 lbs off the front is 35 lbs less in the baggage area.
Sometimes things aren't always the way the appear! I am really starting to believe our battery management system is not working and could have been the root cause of our engine problems. I had the engine running great for a while and then bam once I dropped down to idle the thing dies. I looked at the voltage and it had dropped almost to 10.0. Once the voltage goes you lose both ignition and fuel injectors. We are getting our electronics guy to come out as soon as possible. I will keep you posted. AARRRRGGGGH!
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
This could be a blessing in disguise, if in fact the voltage drop was as you say "the root cause of our engine problems", then it sounds like a single fix could solve a multitude of issues.
Hope this works for you.
Thanks for the update.
Yes, I think it will. I never really liked the system from the beginning. I could not follow the logic of it and we were planning on replacing anyway. The plane will not go anywhere until the unit is gone! Dan's RV-10 crashed because of electrical issues and not the engine. I don't want to follow in his footsteps.
Kevin Horton
Well Known Member
Good decision. If you have an electrically dependent engine, the last thing you want is a complex, unproven electrical system design. Complex systems often have unpredicted failure modes and/or unexpected interactions. If the design doesn't have a substantial service history in similar applications, then the chances of these sort of problems is even higher.
Go for a simple system, with enough redundancy to ensure you can handle any single failure, or any single annunciated failure + any dormant failures (a dormant failure is a failure that occurred some time in the past, but you don't know about it yet because there is no obvious way to detect the failure - e.g. failure of one of two redundant ground paths) . That way you can have some hope of predicting its performance, failure modes, response to operator input, etc.
I didn't like the system from the get-go. After it was put together by an avionics guy, he wires avionics in Gulfstreams and such, I started looking at and found several points that could fail and shut the plane down. Everything will have two or three points that have to fail before it crashes(The system that is) now. We have the design but we were waiting for the engine problems to be fixed before tackling the electric. The waiting game starts again. Good thing I have a C-150 and a Tiger to fly! But I really miss flying the -10!
Kevin:How is the recovery going?
Last edited:
After loosing my patience waiting for our avionics guy to troubleshoot our electrical system and fix it I decided to dive into it. In less than 2 hours I found the source of all our problems. It took a whole 2 minutes to fix but I am almost 100% sure that this is what caused the destruction of my engine. The alternator feed wire was going to the wrong location. Charging only the secondary battery and not charging the primary battery at all. AAAARRGGHHH. Simple fixes but I have to wait for a new battery since the old one is toast.
Kevin Horton
Well Known Member
Are you saying that low system voltage may have triggered the engine problem?
What kind of active indication of low system voltage do you have? Maybe it is not an obvious enough indication, or or is set to the wrong value, or the procedure for low system voltage needs to be reviewed. You need a bullet proof detection of low system voltage + a low voltage alert that is very, very attention getting + a very good procedure to respond to the problem. All three legs of that stool are equally important.
The problem is lack of amps at high speeds/rpms. The battery management system has a 60amp cut off. Since it was wired wrong it would basically cut off all amperage to the primary battery because the alternator was putting out over 60 amps. The problem did not surface in my 17 hours of ground testing because I did not run at high speeds/rpms for very long so the amps from the alternator probably stayed below the 60 amp cutoff. We are going to add amp meters on the alternators and batteries.
Kevin Horton
Well Known Member
Passive indications like this are fine for day VFR aircraft with non-electrically dependent engines. But, if you need the electrical system to be available for safety reasons, you shouldn't count on the pilot to actively monitor system indications as the means to detect alternator failure. It is all too easy for the pilot to get busy and forget to check the amp and volt meters. If you need the electrical system to keep the engine running, you need to have active indication of alternator failure or low bus voltage. This indication needs to be designed to be very alerting. Accept no less. This is not a place to cut corners.
We are going to hook the amp meters into the EFIS/ONE. The voltage is already displayed. The backwards way of wiring was letting a voltage reading go through with very few amps with it. Right now we monitor the battery voltages but I really like your suggestion of the bus voltage also.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Some kind of audio alarm is the way to go.
Months ago, on a long cross country; I apparently knocked the alternator switch to off. I have a digital voltage display, voltage display on the GPS, an amp meter, and a red blinking low voltage light. But somehow, I ignored all; as the battery voltage fell to 11 volts. It wasn't until I landed, that I realized the lack of alternator. Of course, these day's, it's always on my mind, and I always notice.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
Rotary10-RV
Well Known Member
Low voltage alarm
I found a self contained unit originally designed for RC cars, only a few bucks.
Google "low voltage audible alarm"
Bill Jepson
I found a self contained unit originally designed for RC cars, only a few bucks.
Google "low voltage audible alarm"
Bill Jepson
Finally the RV grin.
After playing more engineer than pilot on previous flights I got to run N110TD up and down the runway today at Savannah. It was just me and the beast Mano a Mano. It was the first time the wheels left the ground in over five months. I would have taken it around for a few laps around the patch but it was raining on and off. Everything seemed to be working great. I got about eight one mile flights in.
The controllers were great! Maybe tomorrow or Tuesday I will take it out again.
After playing more engineer than pilot on previous flights I got to run N110TD up and down the runway today at Savannah. It was just me and the beast Mano a Mano. It was the first time the wheels left the ground in over five months. I would have taken it around for a few laps around the patch but it was raining on and off. Everything seemed to be working great. I got about eight one mile flights in.
The controllers were great! Maybe tomorrow or Tuesday I will take it out again.
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
Is it me?
Is is just me or does this whole situation give you an uneasy feeling too? If he had a Lyc he'd have 300 hours on it by now.
Got any new news Todd ?
Is is just me or does this whole situation give you an uneasy feeling too?
If he had a Lyc he'd have 300 hours on it by now.It all depends on what you built the RV for?
Some probably think we all build them to fly, and that's the exclusive reason?
Somewhere along the way we realize that building is fun, so it becomes a task that is possible to complete.
Some of us go a step further and enjoy the challenge of making our own powerplant too.
Sometimes I get frustrated and wonder why I didn't just go 'plain vanella', but over all I'm still into it.
I also made sure not to alter the aircraft in any way, except the engine. I don't want to be a test pilot for a new airframe mode while also experimenting with my own engine. I also reserve the right to switch to a plain vanella engine on down the road for whatever reason.
Some probably think we all build them to fly, and that's the exclusive reason?
Somewhere along the way we realize that building is fun, so it becomes a task that is possible to complete.
Some of us go a step further and enjoy the challenge of making our own powerplant too.
Sometimes I get frustrated and wonder why I didn't just go 'plain vanella', but over all I'm still into it.
I also made sure not to alter the aircraft in any way, except the engine. I don't want to be a test pilot for a new airframe mode while also experimenting with my own engine. I also reserve the right to switch to a plain vanella engine on down the road for whatever reason.
Well I have been busy flying! Yes flying! It is a learning curve. We put in a little over an hour today. We have about five hours on it since rebuilding the engine. All the original engine problems I am sure 99.999999% were caused by electrical issues. Everything has been functioning great since I fixed the electrical system. We have about 20 take offs and landings. We have developed a slight leak in the left tank during our last flight. Our last two flights have been like a Nascar race. Fly fast and turn left while circling the airport at 5,500'. It is pretty boring but not just ready to leave the nest yet. Probably do another 5 to 7 hours over the field and then venture out. The hardest part is slowing the beast down when coming down from altitude.
We are also trying to calculate/test to find out the best MP/RPM settings. We also have an electric adjustable prop that we have to get used to working. It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt! No scary moments yet! The controllers at Savannah have been extremely helpful which allows us to do all of testing above the field. The fastest the plane has been flown so far is about 164 knots and to about 6,000 ft.
We are also trying to calculate/test to find out the best MP/RPM settings. We also have an electric adjustable prop that we have to get used to working. It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt! No scary moments yet! The controllers at Savannah have been extremely helpful which allows us to do all of testing above the field. The fastest the plane has been flown so far is about 164 knots and to about 6,000 ft.
Very Soon. Jim still hasn't made it back!
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N110TD/history/20090704/1428Z/KSAV/KTBR/tracklog
Just some numbers from flightaware.
Here is the track:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N110TD/history/20090704/1428ZZ/KSAV/KTBR
about three hours in the air non-stop.
Just some numbers from flightaware.
Here is the track:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N110TD/history/20090704/1428ZZ/KSAV/KTBR
about three hours in the air non-stop.
I have about 22.6 hours in the air now and I am still alive. Nothing eventful has really happened. The plane is running great. Full throttle take-offs are a blast! This was just a long distance,speed calibration and fuel burn test. I have to check the fuel burn again just to make sure but I was burning 11.3 gph at 11,500, MP 21.5 at a true airseed of 174 knots. I was running 93 Oct with 10%ethanol in it. I was getting about 17.6 mpg. The best news:$2.58 a gallon! The thing I hate the most is our flap switch, auto down and no auto up. Makes it a nightmare for go arounds and touch and goes. Weather has been terrible here lately so it has stopped any more testing for now.
Last edited:
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Put in a ShowPlanes flap positioning system.
Three steps down, full retract -----all with a momentary switch nudge.
Good to hear your plane is starting to behave herself
That is very encouraging. It does seem as though there might be some magic here with V8s and fuel flows. It would be nice to confirm these numbers in the future.
