What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Running engine without wings on?

nippaero

nippaero

Well Known Member
Has anyone ever ran their engine without the wings on? I have a freshly overhauled O320 that I would like to run at some point before the plane is completed.
 
If the engine has been pickled, you wouldn't want to un-pickle it just for the run, IMO. Since it is freshly overhauled, the first few runs should be per the break-in procedure.

I suppose it can be done without the wings using an alternate fuel system but an engine stand would be a better method.
 
People have, but I don't believe it is recommended. Why the hurry to run it rather than just keep it well preserved till later? That's what I am doing

Chris
 
Yes it has been done before, with no ill effects. Use the search function and then pass the popcorn please.
 
I wouldn't

It has also been done with ill effects. I've seen some real bad videos of it. You might be able to find some on YouTube.
 
bhester said:
It has also been done with ill effects. I've seen some real bad videos of it. You might be able to find some on YouTube.
Click to expand...

Isn't there one of a Lancair or something like that that got destroyed by doing this?

Again: Make Haste Slowly
 
Secure it well and also secure the gas can because the prop blast will blow it away, ask me how I know!
Here is a video of me testing my engine without the wings. I did many hours like this setting up the fuel injection fuel ratios using a ground adjustable propeller. After I got it running well I did all my testing at the airport with the fuselage secured to the trailer.
https://youtu.be/pWtUKkNBqKc
 
Last edited:
These threads always crack me up......

It has also been done WITH ill effects.

So the question is two fold.

1. Who do you believe?
2. Are you a gamblin man?

As far as the other comments of why.... I agree.
You should wait until you can not wait any longer.
As soon as you start it, the engine becomes just like any other that is on an airplane not being flown regularly.
 
Why would you want to risk it? There is nothing to be gained and even if you pull it off you then have to figure out how to re-preserve the engine.

Get the wings on. Do the fuel sender calibration and fuel system flush, then when you are doing the last things before first flight start the engine.

Carl
 
I plan on doing this just to check all the fuel and ign systems, maybe drive it down the street to freak out the older couple who is afraid I am going to take OFF on our street when it is done :-o
 
video please

bret said:
I plan on doing this just to check all the fuel and ign systems, maybe drive it down the street to freak out the older couple who is afraid I am going to take OFF on our street when it is done :-o
Click to expand...

Don't forget to immortalize this on YouTube! :)
 
I was told by a builder I respect (beautiful RV-4) that he damaged his tailfeathers doing an engine run without the wings. O-320/wood prop.

The wings dampen the torsional vibration from the engine.

I wasn't there myself, but he's not the type to exaggerate.
 
Last edited:
Engine Run Without wings

It's been nearly ten years, but when building my -8A I recall something from Vans recommending it NOT be done.
 
Mike S said:
Cant find the whole video, here it is just after jumping the chock-----you can see the chock fly out from the left wheel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHt6nYTdmRQ
Click to expand...

You found it before I did and beat me to posting it.

Nothing good comes out of running engine before everything is done. Are your engine instruments calibrated? Has a fuel flow test been completed? Do you have insurance for any possible damage to someone else's property? I know of one homebuilter that started to taxi his airplane before the airplane was ready hitting a car and a glider without having insurance on his aircraft. Cost to repair damage came out of his pocket.

I recommending following Scott's (rvbuilder2002) advice. He has more building experience than anyone else on this forum.
 
Yep

I've started the engine on 2 planes without wings now and no ill effects.
My friend has a Spacewalker and when he takes the wings off for winter storage he even taxis around the airport to wave at everyone.
Show me a video of a fixed gear plane that had a problem with a wingless runup and I'll stand corrected.:D

+1 on securing the gas can!
 
IIRC, the LancAir's gear started to retract, which is why the failure you see on YouTube.

I'm yet to see a video of an issue with an RV doing and engine run without the wings installed; however, that DOES NOT mean it hasn't happened.

When it came time to run my engine(s) for the first time, I wanted the plane fully assembled and the flight controls on and functional, just incase...

If you are ready to run the engine but not fully assemble the airplane, then you are a long way away from flying. So, my question is this, do you want your engine sitting idle, rusting, for six months, 12 months, 18 months, whatever, until you are ready to fly?
 
N941WR said:
IIRC, the LancAir's gear started to retract, which is why the failure you see on YouTube.

I'm yet to see a video of an issue with an RV doing and engine run without the wings installed; however, that DOES NOT mean it hasn't happened.

When it came time to run my engine(s) for the first time, I wanted the plane fully assembled and the flight controls on and functional, just incase...

If you are ready to run the engine but not fully assemble the airplane, then you are a long way away from flying. So, my question is this, do you want your engine sitting idle, rusting, for six months, 12 months, 18 months, whatever, until you are ready to fly?
Click to expand...

One of George Orndorff's old videos showed him running the engine on his -6A without the wings, IIRC. I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with doing low power engine runs with the airplane chocked and perhaps tied down somehow.

That said, it is kind of pointless. If the airplane isn't at the airport and if all the parts aren't on, why run the engine?
 
I've read reports of the shutdown "wet dog shake" being extremely violent without wings to dampen it out. It seems viable, considering how bad my -8 shakes WITH wings....

The other thing to keep in mind is the CG. Without wings the tail is going to be very light. I have a friend who nosed his airplane over on a "no wing" engine run.

Some things to consider.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
IIRC, the LancAir's gear started to retract, which is why the failure you see on YouTube.
Click to expand...

Doesn't look that way to me...you can see the right main *pushing* the chock along, until the gear leg bends and folds.

But the point is still...*why*? There's nothing to be gained from running the engine before everything is assembled and the plane is (nearly) ready to fly, as far as I can see.
 
My word........

This is as good as Primer Wars !

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I ran my motor in the RV7 with no wings on. I was at my home workshop, not 30 miles away at the airfield. I needed to check systems etc which was fortuitous as we had an issue with leaving an impulse spacer on the left P-Mag.

The motor was inhibited and it gave me chance to flush the wax and **** out of it before the first flight.

Done carefully and responsibly, it is fine, just don't get giddy - OK ?
 
I did not have a hanger and therefore needed to complete as much as possible in the home garage. I had rebuilt my own engine and wanted a basic "shake out" run while still at home. If I encountered any problems and had to pull the engine, it would have been a real hassle on the ramp.

I tied a 5 gal gas can to the top of the plane and used gravity feed. I only made two 3-5 minute runs and kept RPM's under 1500. I had no problems from this exercise.

I suppose I could have put wings on for this test, but that is a good bit of work on a 6A and would have forced me out onto the driveway and more "neighbor issues." I already had been visited by the police twice thanks to an unpleasant neighbor.

Larry
 
Last edited:
I got this shot last summer. The guy pulled out of his hanger, started up, taxied past my hanger, pulled over, ran 'er up, sat there for awhile ... then taxied back past my hanger again, pulled over, shut down, pulled back into his hanger, shut the door.

I'm guessing he got part way through his checklist, got to the part that said "both wings on?", and ... oh heck! ... fergot the other dang wing!

go figure,

- Steven
1000 RV3 hours (another one Sunday!)

fktbph.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Running engine before flight w/o wings

I think the bigger issue is engine break in. If engine is new, or rebuilt zero time, the first few hours of running the engine are when the rings seat into the cylinder walls. Read engine break-in process. You're suppose to run the engine hard for first 45 minutes at low altitude to get a good break in. Then the next 9 hours are important too. If you don't get a good break in you will have less compression, less horse power, and use lots of oil.

The need to do engine break-in might be the biggest reason to not put a new engine on a new plane because who wants to do the initial test flight while worrying about engine break in?
 
A valuable teaching moment......

Whether you ever have, or ever will have any interest in doing a ground run of the engine on an RV without the wings attached, this thread should be of great interest to you (at least it should if you use this or other internet forums as a source of technical information in whatever endeavors you enjoy).

This thread now contains bits of info ranging from "Done carefully and responsibly, it is fine....", to "I was told by a builder I respect that he damaged his tail feathers doing an engine run without the wings". (and everything in between).

So which is right?
Isn't answering that question, the real challenge when using info sources like this.... we have a need for some information.... that need implies a lack of knowledge of the subject.... so then, with a lack of knowledge we have to make a decision of who is providing the correct info. That is a Catch 22 if there ever was one.
The thing that makes things really difficult is that the answer to the question (so which is right?) is probably "all of the above".

Obviously there are people that have successfully done ground runs without wings attached.
I happen to know first hand of instances where damage has occurred.
Obviously there are some type of variables involved. I even have some theories as to what they are, but I will never recommend it because I do not want to be responsible for someone else's misfortune. In a situation like this, that is what everyone saying "go for it, it is not a problem" is doing.

This happens daily here in the forums....... Generalized info is provided as if it will be an absolute for every situation. Often it is. But a lot of the time it is not. That is the reason that in my original post I asked the OP if he was a gamblin man?


My point.....?

If you are seeking information, make sure you always analyze the context.
Can you tell with any level of certainty that the provided information will apply the same to your circumstances?

If you are a supplier of information, consider doing your own personal analysis of why my information might contradict someone else's. Sort of a personal "I don't know what I don't know" analysis.

I know this goes directly against the traits that are common to people that have an interest in being a pilot and/or building their own airplane, but it would make for a far more valuable pool of information.
 
I would see many situations where someone may want to do this. For myself building at home in the garage, I wouldn't mind being able to do this so once the plane goes to the airport it becomes an install wings, and fly type deal.

Obviously with everything it appears it can be done with and without damage. So now I am curious as to when cases it was done, why was damage done. And for those that did it without damage what precautions were taken?
 
lr172 said:
I did not have a hanger and therefore needed to complete as much as possible in the home garage. I had rebuilt my own engine and wanted a basic "shake out" run while still at home. If I encountered any problems and had to pull the engine, it would have been a real hassle on the ramp.

I tied a 5 gal gas can to the top of the plane and used gravity feed. I only made two 3-5 minute runs and kept RPM's under 1500. I had no problems from this exercise.

I suppose I could have put wings on for this test, but that is a good bit of work on a 6A and would have forced me out onto the driveway and more "neighbor issues." I already had been visited by the police twice thanks to an unpleasant neighbor.

Larry
Click to expand...

A good post by RVbuilder. Let me state that I am not recommending this approach. Just throwing data points on the table for the OP to evaluate and form his decision.

Larry
 
What an absolutely beautiful post, RVBuilder2002. You have a real knack for being the voice of reason and articulating it so very well.
 
Last edited:
Tail secured to large tree. Wheels chocked. Temporary fuel line taped in place. Gas can secured. Eye protection. Fingers in ears. Socks worn inside sandals for extra protection.
IMG_3593.JPG


It didn't tip over, collapse the gear, shed the canopy (been there, done that), pull the tree out of the ground, or jump the chocks. We also didn't go crazy with the throttle. Your results may vary.
RV8%2525203.jpg
 
Last edited:
RBD said:
Tail secured to large tree. Wheels chocked. Temporary fuel line taped in place. Gas can secured. Eye protection. Fingers in ears. Socks worn inside sandals for extra protection.


It didn't tip over, collapse the gear, shed the canopy (been there, done that), pull the tree out of the ground, or jump the chocks. We also didn't go crazy with the throttle. Your results may vary.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am talking about.....
None of the things you say didn't happen, are any of the reasons I suggest not doing it.....
 
A couple of thoughts...

First, what compelling reason exists for doing this? I haven't heard or read any that sound good, and most seem to be just rationalizations for "I want to".

Second, this is a classic risk management exercise. What is the likelihood of something going wrong? Well, it's not zero, and based on what we've read/seen, it seems to be more than negligible. Somewhat likely? Perhaps.

The second half of risk management is the consequence should the risk actualize. In this case, the consequences can be fairly severe, including serious damage to engine and/or airframe.

At the office, we'd classify this as a 5x1 or perhaps even 5x2 (CxL) risk, which is RED and unacceptable.

So I submit there should be a really, really, really good reason for accepting this risk. Something more than "I bought this engine and I want to see it run!".
 
No wings

After watching the video the only advice I have is..........video tape it and be sure and put on your seatbelt :eek:
 
RBD^^ That is exactly what I envisioned to do.

The real reason I asked this question is the IA who built my engine with me would like to run the motor before he sign's off the overhaul in my engine logs. I do not wish to make him wait for up to a year before I might have my wings on at the airport to run the engine to get my logs. I have the plane at home in my workshop and do not have room to leave the wings attached so they sit in the cradle. This would be a brief engine run at low RPM just to verify everything is "ok". Plane is an RV-6 with a 150hp O320.
 
Last edited:
nippaero said:
The real reason I asked this question is the IA who built my engine with me would like to run the motor before he sign's off the overhaul in my engine logs.
Click to expand...

I'm years from doing an overhaul (I say that with fingers crossed), but...this is Experimental aviation. Is the IA's signature needed? Granted this is outside my domain of expertise, but since *anybody* can work on an experimental plane, can't you sign it off yourself if you participated in the overhaul? Is an entry in the log even required? (Not saying you shouldn't do it, but does the A&P/IA *have* to sign it?).
 
RV7A Flyer said:
I'm years from doing an overhaul (I say that with fingers crossed), but...this is Experimental aviation. Is the IA's signature needed? Granted this is outside my domain of expertise, but since *anybody* can work on an experimental plane, can't you sign it off yourself if you participated in the overhaul? Is an entry in the log even required? (Not saying you shouldn't do it, but does the A&P/IA *have* to sign it?).
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. It's not required but it makes a difference down the road when you go to sell the airplane and maybe the next guy will appreciate the log entries. I like to keep the logs as clean as possible.
 
Risk Management

I would define risk as Probability times Consequences. Extremely low probability times unacceptable consequences produces high risk! 😱
 
nippaero said:
....The real reason I asked this question is the IA who built my engine with me would like to run the motor before he sign's off the overhaul in my engine logs. I do not wish to make him wait for up to a year before I might have my wings on at the airport to run the engine to get my logs....
Click to expand...

Have him preserve the engine for storage, and put into the logs what he did, including that the engine hasn't been run as of that date. Circumstances change and people are sometimes unavailable, and that way you'll both be covered.

Personally, I would not run the engine without the wings on. Too many reasons not to with no obvious benefit.

I feel that the most desirable sequence is to get the plane as far along as you can and then prep it for flight. Once it's ready to fly, any remediation or further development can be handled like it would be for any other flyable aircraft.

Dave
 
elevataors

I ran my wood prop 150 hp rv-4 no wings and no elevators or rudder no damage my friend ran his rv-4 180 hp cs no wings with elevators and put a cress in the one elevator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top