Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Engine break in
- Thread starter skidookid
- Start date
Captain_John
Well Known Member
I would say to contact your engine builder for break in information and procedures.
As far as pilot qualifications go... If you aren't qualified, you might want to delegate the job to someone else.
Who was your engine builder?
CJ
As far as pilot qualifications go... If you aren't qualified, you might want to delegate the job to someone else.
Who was your engine builder?
CJKyle Boatright
Well Known Member
The best way is to fly the engine hard (high MP, relatively low altitude (<5k')) during break-in to properly seat the rings. That means your flight testing will be heavily biased towards to engine break-in for the first few hours, and you'll be able to transition out of that mode as you put more hours on the airplane.
Plenty of people, myself included, have made a first flight that included a new airframe and a new engine.
moosepileit
Well Known Member
Is this a higher performance plane than you are current in?
If 200mph cruise and descents and pattern transitions are old hat, you could test and run new, but it is backwards from what I know.
Checking out is a transition training term, not well mixed with high power cruise for 10-20 hours.
Stats say, a risky period with a new plane. With a new engine to also break in, I would not just get type training and go for it.
I'd be more a fan of test, tweak, paint and if needed install new or overhauled.
Why the need to elevate the risk?
What do others take as a best practice? I don't think a test pilot would approve.
If 200mph cruise and descents and pattern transitions are old hat, you could test and run new, but it is backwards from what I know.
Checking out is a transition training term, not well mixed with high power cruise for 10-20 hours.
Stats say, a risky period with a new plane. With a new engine to also break in, I would not just get type training and go for it.
I'd be more a fan of test, tweak, paint and if needed install new or overhauled.
Why the need to elevate the risk?
What do others take as a best practice? I don't think a test pilot would approve.
Dbro172
Well Known Member
You Don't!
You get checked out and proficient in a different but similar plane first.
Veetail88
Well Known Member
You're going to get a lot of different opinions on this one. I did it together, lots of folks have. Probably better ways to do it all though.
Check out the additional pilot program. If you have the right guy locally, you might be able to make that work for you.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...fm/go/document.information/documentID/1025667
Check out the additional pilot program. If you have the right guy locally, you might be able to make that work for you.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...fm/go/document.information/documentID/1025667
Most recommend high power setting for break-in. I like to use full power circling the airport for 30 to 90-minutes before making any power changes and venturing away from the airport.
Here is Lycoming SI1427C Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Break In and Oil Consumption Service Instruction.
This link will take you to an AvWeb article Break it in Right.
General Aviation New How to Break-In your Engine.
ECI Titan Engine Break-In Instructions and Oil Management.
As for prop pitch change, typically a prop that will give you redline RPM at full throttle is what I would want for break-in. A climb prop would tend to over REV the engine at full throttle so it should be avoided. I want full throttle (or very close) for as long as possible without going over redline. Also need to keep airspeed up so that there is good cooling air flow. DO NOT continue flight with above redline CHT or Oil temperature.
Here is Lycoming SI1427C Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Break In and Oil Consumption Service Instruction.
This link will take you to an AvWeb article Break it in Right.
General Aviation New How to Break-In your Engine.
ECI Titan Engine Break-In Instructions and Oil Management.
As for prop pitch change, typically a prop that will give you redline RPM at full throttle is what I would want for break-in. A climb prop would tend to over REV the engine at full throttle so it should be avoided. I want full throttle (or very close) for as long as possible without going over redline. Also need to keep airspeed up so that there is good cooling air flow. DO NOT continue flight with above redline CHT or Oil temperature.
Last edited:
Bill Dicus
Well Known Member
New airframe and engine
Like Veetail I did both. Also like he I had a basic RV checkout - even from the same generous RV-6 owner. I also had many hours of flying time and high performance experience, all of which helped. If you have only training type aircraft experience I'd suggest having an experienced RV pilot fly the first few hours. Also get an RV checkout in an RV-6,7 or 9. Have fun, fly safe!
Like Veetail I did both. Also like he I had a basic RV checkout - even from the same generous RV-6 owner. I also had many hours of flying time and high performance experience, all of which helped. If you have only training type aircraft experience I'd suggest having an experienced RV pilot fly the first few hours. Also get an RV checkout in an RV-6,7 or 9. Have fun, fly safe!
I have flown a 6 a few times with no issues and when I get ready to fly the 4 I will go get a bunch of time in a 6 (because there are some available) which is a very similar airplane, same engine, wing, etc. Then I will conduct the first flight at high power to break in the engine. So I won't be doing any training or circuits, just doing what the engine needs up high and checking systems.
I think if the airplane and pilot are properly prepared for the first flight it should be a non-event. But preparation of both is critical. That's how it is at the aircraft company I work for - 1st flight is by competent crew with all systems checked out and all ground testing signed off. If you look at the accidents on 1st flights invariably something is missing in the prep. Not 100%, but in the vast majority of cases. Once could still have an engine failure due to an assembly error i.e. not fuel delivery or ignition, but again, that should be addressed in the test planning i.e. decision speed to commit to the takeoff, available fields if it quits on climbout (in front of you only), get to altitude immediately. The window for failure causing an off airport landing should be small. You can never get the risk to 0, but how low you get it is a function of your care in prepping the pilot (whoever it is) and the airplane.
I think if the airplane and pilot are properly prepared for the first flight it should be a non-event. But preparation of both is critical. That's how it is at the aircraft company I work for - 1st flight is by competent crew with all systems checked out and all ground testing signed off. If you look at the accidents on 1st flights invariably something is missing in the prep. Not 100%, but in the vast majority of cases. Once could still have an engine failure due to an assembly error i.e. not fuel delivery or ignition, but again, that should be addressed in the test planning i.e. decision speed to commit to the takeoff, available fields if it quits on climbout (in front of you only), get to altitude immediately. The window for failure causing an off airport landing should be small. You can never get the risk to 0, but how low you get it is a function of your care in prepping the pilot (whoever it is) and the airplane.
Captain_John
Well Known Member
Be advised, pilot training is not the intention of this program. I was the first recipient of the AC in the US. It is meant to promote safety by allowing two proficient pilots to utilize another pathway in order to complete Phase 1 testing.
CJmoosepileit
Well Known Member
That additional pilot program makes sense to me, and the qualifying worksheet seemed reasonable- how many FSDO will have the template to include the APP AC in the phase 1 ops limit letter?
az_gila
Well Known Member
DAR question
And a follow-up question for DARs -
FAA-issued operating limitations allow for operation in accordance with AC 90-116 during Phase I.
Will this be an automatic addition to new Operating Limitations? ...or does it have to be asked for specifically?
And a follow-up question for DARs -
FAA-issued operating limitations allow for operation in accordance with AC 90-116 during Phase I.
Will this be an automatic addition to new Operating Limitations? ...or does it have to be asked for specifically?
I am currently working with our FSDO on the inception of our Bush project, and had to "educate" the inspectors on the existance of the APP and AC 90-116. This is a year and a half after it was approved.
However....I am told that their computer program generates Ops Lims automatically based on inputs that you ask for in the Program Letter - things like wanting to fly DVFR, NVFR, IFR, aerobatics, etc. The APP SHOULD be automatically included - but it is definitely worth it to check in advance.
Our program letter is going to ask for it just so it doesn't get missed, and they don't come way out into the sticks to do the inspection with an incorrect set of Ops Lims.
Paul
Captain_John
Well Known Member
Paul, I don't think that it will ever be "automatic" because not all aircraft are suited for it equipment-wise.
CJ
CJ
Paul, I don't think that it will ever be "automatic" because not all aircraft are suited for it equipment-wise.
I get what you mean John, but the Ops Lims can say you may use the program (if you qualify), and then AC 90-116 defines If the airplane, first pilot and second pilot qualify. SImilar to the fact that Ops Lims say that you can us the airplane IFR IF the airplane is properly equipped.
But I'm just guessing how it works - we really need a DAR to tell us for sure.
Not a bad idea to request it, regardless.
Paul
Michael Henning
Well Known Member
I had a brand new engine and two hours in an RV-4 on my first flight. I had done all of the ground run ups and fuel flow checks to make sure it would run long enough to get me high enough to come back around if I needed to. I was flying the Pitts S2C before (53 hours) plus Cub and Decathalon time, so it was an easy transition for me. Engine broke in after maybe 45 minutes. No problems at all.
ALL Experimental operating limitations issued after the adoption of the AC should have the inclusion.
"Unless operating in accordance with AC 90-116, Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test, only the minimum crew necessary to fly the aircraft during normal operations may be on board."
If it is not in you op lims and you wish it, you may have your op lims amended to the current revision.
PLEASE read the AC closely. It is NOT a simple way to take a friend along or take flight training of any kind!
"Unless operating in accordance with AC 90-116, Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test, only the minimum crew necessary to fly the aircraft during normal operations may be on board."
If it is not in you op lims and you wish it, you may have your op lims amended to the current revision.
PLEASE read the AC closely. It is NOT a simple way to take a friend along or take flight training of any kind!
Last edited:
The engine needs to be run at high power and still get adequate cooling. The test prop would have to be carefully chosen to provide specific static loading.
That is correct.
And not ALL kit aircraft. The aircraft must be listed on the FAA approved kit list. Example: The RV-14 is not yet on the list. Therefore, at this point, the RV-14 doesn't qualify.
If your aircraft doesn't qualify, then you can't take advantage of the AC.
The new op lims are chocked full of things that don't apply to many aircraft.
And not ALL kit aircraft. The aircraft must be listed on the FAA approved kit list. Example: The RV-14 is not yet on the list. Therefore, at this point, the RV-14 doesn't qualify.
If your aircraft doesn't qualify, then you can't take advantage of the AC.
The new op lims are chocked full of things that don't apply to many aircraft.
Last edited:
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
I've seen professional test cells with a plenum over the cylinders. The plenum was force fed air through the top from dedicated electric blowers.
It was a pretty robust set-up for cooling that might be hard to replicate with a prop.
New Engine
This subject invariably results in more bad information than good. The Lycoming document calls for CHT's above 350, below 420. Red line CHT is totally unacceptable and will almost certainly glaze the cylinders requiring cylinder removal and honing at a MINIMUM.
In most cases the rings will seat in anywhere from 45 minutes to a few hours, depending on type of cylinder.
Also, seating the rings does not require full power. 75% or higher works just fine.
The protocol that I like best is that published by Mahlon Russell.
This subject invariably results in more bad information than good. The Lycoming document calls for CHT's above 350, below 420. Red line CHT is totally unacceptable and will almost certainly glaze the cylinders requiring cylinder removal and honing at a MINIMUM.
In most cases the rings will seat in anywhere from 45 minutes to a few hours, depending on type of cylinder.
Also, seating the rings does not require full power. 75% or higher works just fine.
The protocol that I like best is that published by Mahlon Russell.
Kent Ashton
Well Known Member
This break-in schedule from Mahlon is pretty good
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=768808&postcount=6
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=768808&postcount=6
