argoldman

Dave, Shaking the wing while this is going on, I think, is an important part of the equation. Now, the fact that the new pressure problem happened with the new filter is important in that the job of a filter is to keep stuff out of things that are critical. If your original filter was passing these things, worse things can be plugged. I would certainly check downstream of the filter for grunge. If you use multiple filters of decreasing hole size, ultimately you will get the pluggage problem, although it will be over a longer period of time and give you the opportunity to clean the multiple filters to prevent stoppage. In the Aerocanard kit strakes, you put the fuel fillers in before assembling the top of the strake on the rest, thus eliminating the problem of introducing cutting dust into the fuel tanks. If you do have to cut into the strake for the filler, or other reasons, slightly presurize the strake (careful) at the forward drain area so that dust created by cutting will be blown out of the kerf, rather than dropping into the tank. You can also use a vacuum on top where you are cutting, or better yet, Both!

Ya, I left that part out, however, I wonder, if there isn't a benefit of the solubility factor of the gasoline. Perhaps a final rinse?

Don't know if I posted this here. If I did, forgive me. If not, consider the idea. These filters do clog up while doing the job they are supposed to do. It is vital, therefore to eliminate as much crap from the tanks created by the construction technique as possible. There are two issues here, the crap that floats and the crap that sinks. What I did with my dragonfly, and will do with my Aerocanard was to go through a process of tank purges wherein I connected a facet pump to the output of the tank, plumbed it through a large automotive filter then through a fuel injection filter then back into the fuel tank. I allowed this to reflux for several hours, filling the tank initially with only a couple of gallons, periodically shaking the wing, letting it reflux and draining it completely (through the pump/filter mechanism) after the reflux activity (to get rid of as much of the floaters as possible). I then incrementally increased the amount of fuel that I put in and repeated the process. At each iteration I examined the filters and cleaned/replaced them as necessary. The last one, I filled the tank completely, went through the reflux and shaking process and drained the tank completely . Repeat on other wing!!! Warning-- Don't smoke here or do this in a closed hanger.

I think that Tracy has solved the temperature problem with an exhaust coating that is put on the inside and outside of the pipes. I heard, that after running the engine, you can actually touch the exhaust pipe and not get burned. I think that others have seen this at the rotary fly-in at tracy's place. I only know about it second hand. The muffler is another story. After disgarding the turbo, Buly found that the turbo housing, for the rotary did a good job of muffling. Then he got rid of the rotary. I think, but do not know for sure that the renesis has solved both of these problems, or has minimized them. Time will tell

I think that there are two issues with the rotary exhaust. The first, of course is the higher heat, however the second issue, and perhaps more important on the issue of the physical security of the system is the nature of the exhaust pulses. In a standard engine, the exhaust pulses are attenuated by and cooled, somewhat, by their path around the exhaust valve and associated caverns on their way to the exhaust tubing. With the rotary, each pulse exits, unattenuated into the piping. Since the Renesis exhaust goes through a different path (through the side housings) the exhaust path is more similar to an engine of the valvular persuasion. They are, from what I understand, quieter.

Thanks for the orientation, I forgot that the Ellison has a slide body throttle and was looking for a push-pull on a bellcrank. My eye went up to the pull/spring control above the throttle body. Probably Carb heat. Why is it that somebody has to have neon lighted pointers to show you what is right in front of your face:irked:

Yes you do T, The electronics can control the spark and the on duration and timing of the open EFI(njectors) or the mechanical air gizmos control the amount of fuel that is constantly sprayed, hopefully at the intake valve, in the case of the bendix non-electronic type system. You still must control the amount of air that the cylinders (or trochoids) can get in a cycle which directly influences power production. (thus as you decrease the throttle setting closing the throttle plate, the manifold pressure goes down creating a greater vacuum relative to ambient. At full throttle, you read close to ambient because of less throttle plate (or whatever) restriction. That control is a mechanical movement at the throttle body at the engine. Thus the penetrating control. This intake manifold vacuum was used on cars, in the past, to actuate windshield wipers (anybody have a Gremlin and tried to climb a hill with the windshield wipers working?) and to actuate heater air directors. It was also used to mechanically change the timing (I seem to remember) The fuel injector mechanism is necessary to control the amount of fuel injected to give you an air/fuel mixture that will burn at all. Too much fuel per air or too little per air, you get nothing. The amount of fuel required for any throttle position will be in a fairly restricted volume range (controllable by the mixture control. (ie full throttle-plate full open idle with the plate closed-there is some opening to allow the engine to run at idle(adjustable stops)). As you close the throttle plate (toward idle), the MP decreases (suction in the manifold increases) as the descending pistons try to suck air past the closing plate, through the open intake valve or port in the rotary, the sensors (mechanical or electronic) sense the decrease and spray less fuel. In a NA engine, there is always suction in the intake manifold. On the other side is the turbo or supercharger which pumps air past the plate still necessary for air volume control) increasing the amount of air (increased density because of the charger) per intake stroke, to the cylinders. This increased amount of air (mass not volume) must be matched by an increase in fuel delivered via the above mechanism. To clarify further, each intake stroke of the piston or rotor will bring in the same volume of air through the intake system NA or Turbo'd. That is a product strictly of the displacement ( and a few other things. --for you purists--) )Adjusting the throttle plate and/or using the turbo etc does not change this volume, but does change the density of the air charge and thus the number of reactive molecules that are available for the fuel that is metered. Mazda, in it's new Renesis has an electronic throttle where only wires need to penetrate the firewall, but I have nixed that idea based on my prior posts.

It seems as if the pull of the cable is countered by the pull of the springs. This arrangement is great if you have limited space for the thicker, less flexible push-pull. Additionally it functions as a "safety net in the case of control cable separation in that the throttle will go to max and the mixture to rich (if that is the way it is set up.) There are some serious drawbacks (personally experienced). If the cable is restricted at any point between the control and the shaft on the carb, there is no tactile feedback indicating that the mechanism is not working or is jambed (when going to low power to higher power). This is not too important on T.O. as you will get no thrust (and probably perceive that something is wrong), however if it happens in flight, after a reduction of throttle, perhaps when approaching a landing, and you wish to add power, the lever will move, the only problem is that that engine will not respond. --Low, relatively slow and no power-- not a good situation to be in. In my case, in my dragonfly, it appears as if a heat shield expanded somewhat and jammed the throttle body bellcrank. On leveling off, the addition of throttle had no effect, the engine merely purred along at idle speed. Post mortum (or flyum) showed no control problem-- probably because the mechanism cooled and recovered to its original shape. The lack of feedback from the throttle (as in the jammed bellcrank) ate up some gliding time while trouble shooting and trying to get the engine running at power again. (I lived but the aircraft suffered fatal injuries). As a result, I will use nothing but a Push-pull system for Power. If I use a boink-boink engine, the same goes for mixture and prop. I said to my plane, and future projects, "Fool me once, @#$% you, fool me twice, @#$% me!":mad:

Maybe you should think of a Midwest Rotary (based on the Norton rotary) EFI and ignition, AE110R (about 110 hp) @ 115 Lbs striped. I had one in my dragonfly. It seems an almost perfect fit for the VE. although Diamond has shed the company, I have heard that parts, etc are available.

No vitriol here, Just been there and done that. The engine that was flying in that article has been considerably changed. The new engine is inverted, I think it has 2 turbo or super charger systems among other changes, minor and probably major. They will probably get it right some day, and hopefully soon. But until then, ones order and the investor's money is up in the air, so to speak. Remember Zoche and others.

Be great if they can do it. LoPresti has a lot of good things to his credit, excluding, of course the reintroduction the modified swift. The delta hawk was mounted in a Velocity, at least 12 years ago when they were located at Kenosha Wi Airport. Has that plane flown yet? It will be great if they can really pull this off and have the press releases mean something except publicity

You can hobble out any time on a weekend. This one is full--Kids in from the coast. Send me a PM and we will get together. We can do walker races. (or perhaps companion chairs)

Im callin "Age and engine type discrimination!!!!!!!!":irked: :irked: I'd like to hit you through the internet, but I can't get up easily and my caine keeps bouncing off of my screen. You do, however have a point in the development time situation, however. On the plus side, those of us in our dotage will welcome the smoothness of the rotary or Franklin. Time to get off of the Harley and on to the Honda.

Now all you need is to put a cockpit push-pull control on that door so that you can take off on hot-hot days full open and when you get to altitude close it down:cool:

Very interesting, Prior to this it was just 4 bangers. Souring on the franklin due to parts availability. Main source needs a minimum quantity of pistons before ordering, and that may take 6 months. Perhaps with IVO, the rotary is the best match Hummmmmmmm? no boink boink boink!

Greetings Edge. My thoughts about the IVO: Originally, I too thought that they were quite wimpy, but the Magnum (high HP) is rather stout. The hub, although seemingly weak (holding the blades crushed between two aluminum disks with two bolts through each blade seemed, originally, like a bad idea, however, with the exception of early problems with blade separation (some say due to improper installation) and a redesign, as well as a prohibition of use in 4 cylinder engines, I have not heard of any blade separations or other problems. (the operative phrase here is "I have not heard".) There are some deficiencies in that the pilot controls the pitch, not the RPM as in a true C/S prop. IVO does have a small accessory which is supposed to make it a RPM selectable control situation. I have heard that that is not worth the real estate on the panel. John Slade seems to be happy with his on his rotary, albeit it not having huge time in front of it. The hub of the IVO and the prop itself, is not terribly heavy, compared to the C/S props of more conventional construction (MT etc. whether electric or oil controlled.) C/S is a great feature, independent of any power source or size. 1) it allows the engine to produce rated max HP on take off rather than needing to accelerate (distance) to allow max RPM. This means shorter T.O runway usage. 2) On approach, flattening the pitch creates dumpable drag which shortens the landing roll considerably. (occasionally I fantasize about Beta pitch to really shorten the landing roll, but then I have to think about getting out of the place that I have landed. 3) It's neat. The aviation industry, perhaps recognizing these traits of the C/S makes them standard on virtually all high performance aircraft. This is not to say that a good fixed pitch prop is not adequate. Semi-constant speed props (semitaur-- or however you spell it--) also have some of the same, but limited, advantages of these plus are not controllable, but are dependent only on physics. In my dragonfly I had an Airmaster electric C/S/ prop which utilized Warp blades. A great prop despite the blades. Too bad there is not a higher HP version available at this time. Both the engine and prop type are still "up in the air", so to speak.

Mainly looking for the in excess of the 200 HP, lighter than the angle valve. I like the idea of the smoothness both for comfort and for the ability to use a IvoProp. Don't know if I want higher compression, however the stock engine is supposed to produce 225 hp, I believe. I also like the fact that you can remove a panel on the top of the case and view all of the innards. The considerably lower price is also a plus.

Brett, Thanks for the info. I am still agonizing over engine choices (about 1 year and countless $ away) Current choices are 1)renesis, 2 Franklin,3) lycosaur. If you can find the name you mentioned, it would be helpful. I am thinking of converting it to a fuel injected, (either Air Performance or electronic) with one mag and one electronic ignition (probably Savier's) Thanks again

Without meaning to start a new war on old things----What are the general (or specific) feelings about the Franklin IO-350 (6 cyl >200 hp). Is the American distributor still in business? Any ideas on engine mounts, exhaust systems, intake systems and props? Based on reviewing old posts in various places, Nat deep sixed it because of weight, gave little other data, but it appears as if the performance was superior to IO360. Coming in late for the Cozy banquet at OSH, I think that I heard a couple of people planning to use this engine. What say Y'all??? __________________ I Canardly contain myself! Rich

false start-- see other post

Easy for you, light of weight (but by no stretch of the imagination a light-weight), to say, Marc. I will probably have to add helium to my nose to get into proper CG. (but then I will probably talk in a very high pitch for a while) Is it my imagination but don't some sail planes use water for ballast??? 1 ft cubed for water might be hard to find, however 1/2 foot, if that is all that is needed seems to be about the size of the volume forward of the forward bulkhead FS0. Or the volume can be increased (and the total weight of ballast decreased) by elongating the nose (for those lighter ones --- jealousy speaking here). Sand, dirt or mud is usually available either on, or close by most airports, if needed. The airborne aquarium can be, of course used, with fillers, to safely carry lead or steel shot, ingots or anvils, concrete, or anything of the correct weight, that will fit through its opening. As a matter of fact in rereading the above statement, why not use mud:rolleyes: you get the best of both worlds. (as inelegant as the thought is) Yes, you are absolutely right about the variation in the density of different sand. That's what the spring scale is for. If using steel or lead, both great, some method should be incorporated in the baggage area for securing the ingots, or whatever, when not secured in the nose. 50 Lbs of lead and 50 lbs of feathers weigh the same, but I would rather be hit by the feathers;) In a multi-g "arrival" ie 4 G, those metal things (at 50#) will have an equivalent weight of 200#. will the standard baggage tie-down (are there any) withstand that kind of force?? Thanks again for your talk and your brutal self evaluation (no less expected from you) at the banquet. It was so right on, as shown by some of the posts that have been flying hither and Yon. I hope that we all learned from it. Keep plugging away.

Good thought, I forgot to mention to carry a small bottle of anti-freeze if you leave empty and want to drop off a front seat passenger. (you could also carry some salt to dissolve in the water that you add.) If you take off with a load of water ballast, anti-freeze it. (if conditions and your max altitude warrants) the sand idea sounds better all of the time.

similar to the moist feeling, in the seat of your pants, one might get after a near miss:irked: Of course you could ask the same question about the fuel tanks. It behooves us, when designing an unproven mechanism, to do so that it doesn't fail in normal or abnormal service. (don't use grocery bags for containing the H2o perhaps a thicker polyethylene type material with securely closing top (kinda like portable fuel tanks) is in order. You could even make the nose cone a self-contained balast tank with filling and draining fixtures built in. I believe that he Concord used fuel shifting from aft to forward tanks to change the CG of the aircraft as the CL changed when going supersonic. I think that Marc's weight limiting comment was more to the point, if great (relative term) nose weight is needed. The amount of weight needed can be roughly predicted, preliminarily, by doing a W&B calculation. If you need more weight than water can provide in the limited space, what about using sand rather than water. This material is readily available at most places. Measurement of weight is quite easy with a small spring scale. The design obstacle that one has to work with this, of course is how to remove it, if necessary, (water can be relieved with a valve), however the sandy solution is not undoable. the real design challenge, here, is to design a mechanism, as far forward as possible (to reduce weight necessary) which uses a locally available material, which can be removed and disposed of so you don't have to carry it somewhere else in the plane when CG concerns make it necessary to remove it. If you always fly with the same pilot and G/BIS (girl/boy in side) permanent nose ballast (or none depending on what's in front) is great. (assuming that the back seat load doesn't mail you out of the envelope. If the weight and distribution is variable, especially in the same trip, then this type of addressment might be in order

C'mon Marc, You have heard of Heavy Water haven't you???

But they will get their report, correct or incorrect, impeccably written