Bob Axsom

Well Known Member
I am a racer and I like high RPM but I like to have done something to earn it not just see it go up to new heights on two successive flights in trend fashion and at the same time see a speed reduction of the aircraft below the previous top end speed.

I have recently been working on a speed mod involving the gap around the inboard aileron mounts.

I have been flying and racing the RV-6A for several years with a Hartzell C/S prop so I am somewhat familiar with its performance. The most I have ever been able to get out of it is 2730 rpm and that was rare.

On 7-18-13 I made a test flight with the new closure plates and recorded the speed as 182.4 kts and notes the RPM as 2720 (which is common - 2730 is the highest number I have ever seen). This was a failure since my previous speed without the mod was 189.8 kts.

Instead of removing the new plates I had some time ago developed some end plugs of balsa wood for the flaps and ailerons that I decided to reinstall and test in combination. They had failed also but I thought in combination the results might be different. I did my standard USAR handicap procedure triangular pattern run twice at 6,000 ft density altitude on 7-19-13 and post processed the data in the NTPS spread sheet. The speeds were 181.6 and 183 for and average of 182.3 kts. Another not unexpected failure but I noted in my raw data sheet that the RPM was initially 2720 but increased to 2750 and occasionally to 2760.

Even though the experiment was a failure I was pleasantly surprised to see the increase in rpm which for my 72" prop is still below the tip speed problem area. So I finally gave in to the failure and started removing the two mods. This is not an insignificant task. On 7-22-13 I reflew the test with mods removed and the speeds were 183.3 kts and 182.9 kts for an average of 183.1 kts. Verifying that the mods appeared to be no good but the speed was still way off and the RPM this time was up to 2770.

In the past in 2004 I had a prop runaway and engine seizure due to loss of oil so I am sensitive to that possibility. The oil was recently changed and is still at a full 8 quarts.

This weekend is the biggest race of the year - the AirVenture Cup - so there is not a lot of time. I am going to pull the cowl today and see what I can find but this is not normal (over 1,000 hrs flying this plane). It almost seems like the prop can't reach high enough pitch so the oil pressure is compensated with higher RPM.

If you has seen this increasing RPM trend and have some experience to share I would be glad to hear it.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Bob,
Is there any chance that the prop is running against the low pitch stop and not the gov.? I would not expect this to be the case given no change in T.O RPM that you have mentioned. This would be easy enough to determine.
Level flight all in. Move blue knob to coarser pitch slightly. Prop should immediately respond.
Next, level flight all in. begin a descent. RPM should not fluctuate.
 
RPM immediately increased

the RPM went from 2730 to 2750 immediately at the start of the descent - what does that mean?

Bob Axsom
 
$$$$

the RPM went from 2730 to 2750 immediately at the start of the descent - what does that mean?

Bob Axsom

It means you are going to spend some $$$ to get the LOW RPM/high pitch stops moved, as your prop is at the high pitch stops already (not likely at altitudes less than ~12000MSL). This assumes your gov is working as required - you did pull the blue knob back to see if it still worked after the RPM came up?

This stop change operation is not difficult - fly to a prop shop & tell 'em what you want done and SHAZAM it's done, and your wallet is lighter.

Second test to confirm what is happening: do the same maneuver (at your normal test altitude), and pull the blue knob back, once in the descent. If the prop is at the stops, it will not respond. If the gov can get the RPM to drop, the problem is not in the prop.

If it does respond, I would say your gov might need an IRAN inspection - the speeder spring might be less than. Be sure to tell the selected shop that you do not need any paperwork on the inspection - cheaper that way.

FYI the PCU5000 govs will control within ~10RPM, if this is a requirement for you. I think they run about $1450USD?

Carry on!
Mark
 
Yes I did pull the blue knob back

Yes I did pull the blue knob back and the response was normal. I saw the aircraft speed increase when I pulled back to around 2610 RPM which is probably just fogging up the picture but Mark you and the rest of you have been very helpful. I also have another suspect for my reduced speed that I have to test before flying to Mt. Vernon for the races Friday. I think the fuel flow transducer which works so well (what a great device) is restricting my fuel flow at the top end. I still have the old fuel line so I am going to reinstall it today and at least fly the races without the restriction and at best with a pre-race speed test. No time to go back and forth.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
F1Boss nailed it.

If you lose the ability to control the rpm (meaning lower the rpm below a certain point) you are on the stop. Then, if you start to descend, the rpm will increase just like a fixed pitch.

Currently, from cruise power at altitude, I can start a descent and hit the stop as high as 2450 rpm, increasing related to indicated airspeed, with no ability to govern below that rising point. That is the stop.

Now, regarding your Red Cube fuel flow transducer, it isn't limiting you. I can flow over 20 gallons an hour no problem. If it suspect, run the boost pump and compare data.
 
Side issue really. the Red Cube installation is suspect

I focussed on noninterference routing, elevation, position, stability etc. and achieved all of that but I installed a 90 degree elbow on the input and output to facilitate this nice clean installation. I have been informed by two other racers that I shot myself in the foot. I am going to reinstall the old point to point hose for this weekend's races and work out a better installation later.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
it ain't over till it's over

Hey Bob:

Dudewannarace/54SG is right - the transducer is not the problem. Could be the 90s used to install it? Sure - what were you thinking? Caveman again??!! :eek:

Sounds like your gov is waiting for an IRAN, if it still worked as you noted, and sounds like DWR needs new blades for his racin' machine. As he found out, none are available...but I know of a company in Italy... Might have the low pitch stops adjusted till then, DWR? See ya at Reno! Give me a call about the blades.

Carry on
Mark
 
Red Cube Fittings

There seems to be conflicting information on Red Cube Fittings and installation locations.

I'm in the process of installing the Red Cube in my RV-9A and since it has fuel injection, I'm locating the Red Cube just aft of the firewall where the boost pump for the carb would otherwise be located. Because of the geometry, I have an AN822-6D 90 degree elbow on the bottom inlet and an AN823-6D 45 degree elbow on the top outlet.

The installation sheet that was shipped with my Red Cube (1030032 Rev. C) only says:
"It is your responsibility to ensure that the installation of this fuel flow transducer, related fittings and fuel lines does not cause the fuel pressure to drop below the specified Minimum Inlet Pressure plus a reserve as outlined in AD23-16."
It also says:
"If the aircraft has a fuel pump(s), the flow transducer MUST be installed downstream of the last fuel pump."

Regarding the former, no restrictions on fittings are mentioned. Regarding the latter, I've read lots of posts where the Red Cube was installed upstream of one or both pumps with satisfactory operation.

I also downloaded from Electronics International's website, the Installation Instructions for Primary Glass Panel Engine Monitor MBP-50P (II 0425051 Rev I) which states on P25 in a box showing Fittings:
#4 Straight - AN816-4-4D
#6 Straight - AN816-6D
#8 Straight - AN816-7D

#6 45 deg - MS20823-6D

#4 90 deg - MS20822-4-4D
#6 90 deg - MS20822-6D

Based on the above information from the manufacturer, I'm designing my installation using angle fittings on the inlet and outlet of the Red Cube. If there is other manufacturer's information that I have overlooked, please let me know.
 
An old post of consolidated info from the horse's mouth:

As far as I know Dynon distributes both the FloScan 201B as well as EI's FT-60.

The FloScan unit is much more sensitive to the angles/fittings entering and exiting the unit. EI's unit does not care. You can run 90 degree fittings in and out of ours without problems.

JPI does not sell EI's FT-60:cool:

Maybe you can get Dynon to trade you for a FT-60?

Good luck!

Matt


You do NOT want to rigid mount the transducer to the motor (any part) using just a fitting. It is a huge safety issue. The fitting could theoretically fatigue and break. You absolutely need to have flexible line on both sides of the Floscan 201B or the EI FT-60 (that Dynon now utilizes).

After manufacturing/supporting flow instruments for a good number of years we have seen that flow transducers accuracy is typically better when mounted after both fuel pumps. They simply seem to prefer to have fuel pushed through them, not pulled through. The truth of it though is that many installation drawings still read as though we were still using the older Floscan 201 transducers. I have seen installs that mount the transducer between the pumps with claimed success. The Floscan units were much more sensitive in regards to mounting location, angles of fittings in and out, and attitude. Our new design will tolerate a lot more. Frankly we don't care if the thing flows straight up, or if you put 90-degree fittings in and out (FT-60 only) of the transducer. Just don't mount it upside down or flowing sharply downhill.



Hope this helps,

Matt Sharp


Hello All!

Your friendly neighborhood EI Tech support rep here!

There are really two issues in regards to EI?s specifications on flow transducer placement.

1. Accuracy of the output of the flow transducer.
2. Safety.

Issue one is pretty basic. After manufacturing flow instruments for a good number of years we have seen that flow transducers accuracy is typically better when mounted after the mechanical fuel pumps. They simply seem to prefer to have fuel pushed through them, not pulled through. The truth of it though is that many installation drawings still read as though we were still using the older Floscan 201 and 231 transducers. I have seen installs that mount the transducer between the pumps with claimed success. The Floscan units were much more sensitive in regards to mounting location, angles of fittings in and out, and attitude. Our new design will tolerate a lot more.

The other more serious issue is in regards to safety. We want to make absolutely sure that the fittings on the transducers never are subjected to conflicting vibration planes. The engine will flex in the motor mounts creating conflicting vibration planes between the engine and the airframe. This is why the ?flexible line in? and ?flexible line out? is called out so often. This is also why we don?t want the transducer rigid mounted, via a fitting, to a carburetor or fuel pump. A contradicting vibration plane will focus the energy directly to the fitting. It is our sincere concern that with the two conflicting vibration planes here could cause the fitting to fatigue and crack. This would be bad?and we have seen it happen?.

On the bright side, we don?t care if the thing flows straight up, or if you put 90-degree fittings in and out of the transducer. Just don?t mount it upside down, flowing sharply downhill, or before the pumps. :eek:

Please let me know if you have any questions or if we may be of any assistance.

Matt Sharp
 
Removed it today so should have a test comparison soon.

I removed the two hoses, capped the sensor ports, installed the old hose and ground ran the engine tonight. I need to reinstall the cowl and hope to make a test run tomorrow. I have to point out that most RV builders would be happy with 183 kt speed, the function was fine as far as fuel flow monitoring is concerned but I want ~190 kts that I had before so the objective is different. I'm sure you will be happy with the performance as I was until I ran the speed test.

Bob Axsom
 
AVC Race

Bob I don't know about you, but I am going to have to be under 15gph to finish the 400nm race with half hr reserve. I may be stopping at one of the fuel stops since we will most likely will have a NW wind?? See you in Mount Vernon.
 
I agree with your thoughts

Bob I don't know about you, but I am going to have to be under 15gph to finish the 400nm race with half hr reserve. I may be stopping at one of the fuel stops since we will most likely will have a NW wind?? See you in Mount Vernon.

I agree generally but this year I am going all out for speed and I fully intend to take advantage of the no penalty fuel stop at Dixon. From what I see so far the wind will be around 10 knots out of 350 degrees with the same thing from the surface pretty much all the way up so fly low stop the clock at Dixon and lose almost nothing on the resume climb out.. Last year I flew with my tip tanks for a comfortable non stop range margin and gave up 3 knots. Finished 4th in RV Blue 1.44 mph behind Jeff Barnes - out of the running. I'm really pushing it this year but my latest speed tests are not encouraging. Here is some semi confidential information on RV entries:

Kevin Phelps 11 RV Blue RV-7A
Alan Carroll 12 RV Blue RV-8
Jon Ross 27 RV Blue RV-8
Robert Axsom 71 RV Blue RV-6A
Eugene Ledda 675 RV Blue RV-7A
Jim Huff 77 RV Blue RV-6
Douglas Shoup 96 RV Blue RV-4
Jeff Barnes 411 RV Blue RV-6TD
Tom Moore 621 RV Blue RV-7A
Tony Crawford 49 RV Red RV-4

Bob Axsom
 
AVC Race

Bob, I won't be a threat speed wise, just getting a baseline. If they are truly "no penalty" fuel stops I might stop also?? Is the restart a true flying restart or end of runway start? Good luck, see you tomorrow. Gene
 
Unfortunately I don't know

I've always avoided it with my old fuel burn rates but in order to go full speed with my current burn rate and no tip tanks I'm going to learn the rules on the job. See you there. I see Garry Wilcox has entered the Mt. Vernon 100 this morning - he is fast!

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Fuel System Change Back

I think I said last night that I removed the cowl changed the plumbing and test ran the engine. I didn't have a lot of sleep the night/day before (it comes in increments at various times without regard to Earth orientation) and it drained me. I still have to reinstall the cowl and prepare for the trip tomorrow but I am holding out for 8 hours of sleep before I jump back into the fire. For those with technical interest that means no disciplined speed comparison test flight for now. I have a good feeling about it but no real information before the AirVenture Cup Race.

Bob Axsom
 
It seems the problem was the repaired LASAR sansor mag

The situation kept getting worse until I replaced a repaired LASAR mag with a factory new unit and everything returned to normal. After replacing the mag I ran speed tests with and without the red cube in the fuel system and there was no clear difference.

Bob Axsom