I have 2 comments to make.
! I was still finding problems at 20 hours at max power. It took 50 hours on
a test stand to run successfully with out problems. the engine must have a
prop on it to develop vibration similar to the airplane.
2 if the engine was run on the aircraft in ground testing, it would be
difficult to develop full power. very difficult to tie the plane down, with
out damaging structure. If the plane had a fixed pitch prop full power
probably could not be developed and max stress on the power plant would not
occur. problems could remain hidden until flight. if the plane had a
constant speed prop this would not apply. I have considerable experience in
ground testing because of my one of a kind istallation. I did not trust the
powerplant until i got very bored running it. I still do not completely
trust it in the plane.
chris smale
smale@ncinternet.net
I had 30 hours of ground test time before I flew. A year of
taxi-testing. Nearly wore out a set of tires going down the runway at
up to 100 mph. Then chop the power and brake to a stop. 5400 feet was
barely enough, would have liked 10,000. But that is one way to do some
full power testing on the ground. Went out early in the weekday
mornings, nobody else out there.
As far as trust goes, that is something that develops very slowly. I
flew my plane for a year close to home before I made my first long cross
country to Arlington. Even with almost 400 air hours on my plane now, I
still try to remain within gliding distance of an airport if at all
possible. Like Powersport said, if the test pilot of the Velocity had
done that the plane would still be flying now.
Exhaust systems: you can use the stock cast iron manifold like I do.
It's worth the extra 10 lbs. to me to have something bulletproof that
won't fail and go through the pusher prop or melt the fiberglass
wing-root or whatever.
Perry
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/
Copyright 1998-2002 All world wide rights reserved.