Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:16 AM - AEIO vs. IO (Pete Elia)
2. 11:57 AM - Aircraft Engine Torque (Pat Wilks)
3. 03:22 PM - Getting another Zodiac BACK in the air.... (Grant Corriveau)
4. 04:51 PM - Re: AEIO vs. IO (Tracy Crook)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Pete Elia" <peteandsharon@earthlink.net>
Can someone give me a quick overview of the differences of the lycoming AEIO vs.
IO.
With what kind of aerobatic use would the AEIO be needed over an IO with a Christen
inverted oil system?
Is the AEIO all set up to be inverted with no extra oil systems? Is the AEIO set
up with any different tolerances or balancing of parts for higher G aerobatics
than simple loops, rolls, and inverted flight? (thinking about amateur sport
aerobatics in a RV7).
I have seen a lot of IO with inverted oil and tank flop tubes on builders web sites
for their planes, but don't now much about what the AEIO would add or subtract
from that equation. Looking for pluses or minuses and technical differences.
Thanks
BTW - I really enjoy the alternative discussion on this list. I am several years
away from an engine decision and am watching the options closely. What will
the rotary do upside down? Is it limited to momentary 1G maneuvers?
Pete E.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aircraft Engine Torque |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Pat Wilks <patwilks@mindspring.com>
Regarding a flat torque benefit, was there any mention of how important it is to
have high torque in the lower RPM range also so you can turn a bigger, more
efficient prop up to its working rpm? This is one of the benefits that we hope
to soon offer with the Dyna-Cam engine. The Dyna-Cam has about 500 ft.lb. torque
at 500 rpm, increasing to 650 ft. lb. at 1200 rpm, and remaining flat and
only decreasing to 525 ft. lb torque at 2,000 rpm (take-off.) I understand
props can be designed more efficient and will be much quieter when run between
1900 - 2,000 rpm, especially for take-off.
Dyna-Cam is nearing completion of a reorganization of investors
necessitated by the bad economy and "Attack." But the new investors seem dedicated to re-launching production. The website (http://www.dynacam.com) will be updated when all is settled.
Pat Wilks
Dyna-Cam
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Getting another Zodiac BACK in the air.... |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Grant Corriveau <grantc@ca.inter.net>
After a hiatus (moving, life, etc..) I'm starting to fix an ignition problem
with my CAM100. After a couple of incidents of power loss in flight, I was
finally able to pinpoint one channel as the culprit.
The engine manufacturer helped me troubleshoot the system and wierdly - the
problem has to be in one of the Hall Effect sensors (or the lead/wires from
there to the computer). The problem is intermittant - very hard to pinpoint
- but HEAT seems to play a role in causing the failure as it always happened
under conditions when the engine was hot.
So, I'm thinking about a faulty pin, poor connection, something like that.
However, today when I was inspecting the magnets as they move past the
sensors, I wondered, what would happen if the expansion of the various parts
actually caused the gap to get too small?
Question: If a Hall Effect sensor should actually come in contact with the
magnet as it sweeps past on the flywheel, would this interfere with the
signal?
I originally wondered the opposite - could my mangets be too far away - but
that doesn't add up as the failures were always at higher rpm (i.e.
cruise/takeoff power when the signal is strongest), and physically the
sensors are very close -- maybe too close?.
So, my BIG JOB to gain access to these sensors and replace them with new
ones from the factory will commence in a few days when I get back from work.
Anyone have any previous experience with failures in Hall Effect sensors?
The engine manufacturer tells me that they've never seen this one before.
--
Grant Corriveau
C-GHTF / HDS / CAM100
Of course when I started the engine in the driveway today, it started right
up and runs like a top on both channels... tempting to just go flying! BUT
after experiencing that deafening silence of a dying engine in flight, I
WILL NOT fly it until I'm reasonable sure I've found/cured the problem.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
> BTW - I really enjoy the alternative discussion on this list. I am
several years away from an engine decision and am watching the options
closely. What will the rotary do upside down? Is it limited to momentary
1G maneuvers?
>
> Pete E.
I had assumed I would need all the inverted systems in my rotary powered
RV-4 because I always dreamed of doing aerobatics but had no experience. I
called Van's to order the inverted fuel system parts and was asked why. "So
I can do aerobatics" I said.
Long story short, I was talked out of buying the parts until I found out
what aerobatics was all about. (How's that for vendor honesty!) I took a
few hours of aerobatic instruction (Pitts S2B) and found out that I loved
doing loops, rolls, wingovers, etc but was amazed to find that they could be
done without ever going negative G. Furthermore, I found that I really
didn't care for negative G maneuvers. No problem since my interest was not
in competition aerobatics.
So, unless you really want to do competition or sustained negative G, the
inverted oil system is not necessary. I've done momentary negative G "push
overs" and never seen the oil pressure dip. The EFI doesn't care which side
is up so it is fine even for sustained negative if you have the flop tube in
the tank. If I wanted inverted oil, I'd probably use a Christen system and
adapt it to the rotary which should not be much of a change.
Tracy Crook
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|