Awesome report on the conversion, Sam. It *might* make me change my mind about
using an O-200 in my KR2S, instead of using a VW engine. But after further
consideration, it seems the real hero is that SDI ignition.
I'll seriously put that in my short-list.
Griff Pickett
-----Original Message-----
From: KRnet <krnet-boun...@list.krnet.org> On Behalf Of
krnet-requ...@list.krnet.org
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:00 AM
To: krnet@list.krnet.org
Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 8, Issue 104
Send KRnet mailing list submissions to
krnet@list.krnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
krnet-requ...@list.krnet.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
krnet-ow...@list.krnet.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
Contents of KRnet digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine (Samuel Spanovich)
2. Re: N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine
(robert7...@aol.com)
3. Re: N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine (Jeff Scott)
4. Re: N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine (Jeff York)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 00:44:35 -0700
From: Samuel Spanovich <spanovich...@gmail.com>
To: krnet@list.krnet.org
Subject: KR> N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine
Message-ID:
<CAHXNgWpDjTnH5B85SVe_tnVR2KmQgFjHJzp=9fhuzujnd-w...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Get ready for another long read, because after fighting one obstacle after
another, I finally managed to get the plane airborne today with the new
upgrades, and all I can can say is....wow, was I impressed with the engine.
See below for details.
I won't beat a dead horse on the events leading up to this, so for a complete
background on the aircraft/engine, please see my previous post.
That said, here is my complete setup.
Revmaster 2100D
94mm AA Pistons/Cylinders
MOFOCO 041 Heads
CB 2232 Camshaft
SDS CPI Electronic Ignition (Dual)
AutoLite 4164 Spark Plugs
Sterba 54" x 54"
Fixed Timing at 25 BTDC (to replicate the magneto) Compression Ratio: 9.5
RAF48 Airfoil
Stock KR2S (~650 lbs empty weight)
Clear Skies
Light Winds On deck and aloft
ALT: 3024
Temperature: ~58F
Ground Testing/Runup - My previous post discussed getting a very powerful
3300 static RPM with the engine barely broken in. One thing I did not mention
(and didn't really notice until today) is just how different the idle/low power
throttle response is when compared to the stock VW cam. I set my idle at about
1000 rpm, and I will say, the CB 2232 has a pretty big lope at idle, which is
one change I DON'T like. It makes the engine sound sort of rough, but still
retains the throaty-ness at the same time. It isn't as big of a deal with the
propeller off the plane, but as soon as you add the extra load on the engine,
it is very noticeable. Where the stock VW cam had a pretty snappy throttle
response throughout the entire RPM range, the CB 2232 has a pretty sluggish
throttle response from about
1000-1500 RPM. Once above 1500 RPM, up to about 2000 the throttle response
gets better, and above 2000 RPM everything is fairly normal. The Cam does
state that the power band is from "1500-4500 RPM" range, but I did not think it
would be this literal. As soon as you hit 1500 RPM, everything smooths out
quite a bit, and by 2000 RPM it feels almost like the stock cam, with quick
throttle responses. This is very important when coming in to land, because in
the event of a botched landing and/or go-around, you have to really be prepared
to add power, because it will take that extra second to spool up. It doesn't
sound like much, but trust me, it is just enough to potentially get you into
trouble if you're late to add power.
If this lope or laggy throttle response is a potential annoyance to you, then
do not go with this cam. In that case, the CB2280 may not be a bad option,
since it has a decent power increase throughout the entire RPM range. However
if you don't mind the lope and want the extra throaty-ness of the CB2232, this
cam is a solid choice in my (limited) experience so far.
Regarding the SDS ignition, I set the timing to 25 BTDC since I knew the engine
would work in that configuration, since the magneto was fixed at this setting
throughout the entire RPM range. The SDS does allow the user to configure the
timing however they want at a particular RPM (10 BTDC at
1000 RPM, 12 at 1100 RPM, 25 at 2500 RPM, etc.) however since the engine was
designed for 25 degrees BTDC at all RPM ranges, I just stuck with this for now.
In addition, the SDS dual ignition incorporates a "Run-Up" feature, in which
you can shut off one ignition coil for approximately 3 seconds, then shut the
second coil off for approximately 3 more seconds, listening for the drop in RPM
very similar to a magneto check. Mine both checked out okay, and I noticed no
abnormalities between both ignition coils. The only downside (at least on the
basic CPI version) is that when you're in "Run-Up" mode, you cannot monitor the
RPM on the CPI controller to see just how much RPM is lost. You just kind of
have to listen, and gauge it appropriately. The CPI controller does include a
lead wire to hook up to an analog RPM gauge, which you could use to note the
drop in RPM, however the lead wire itself is calibrated in thousands of RPM,
not "hundreds" of RPM like my old gauge was (with the magneto). Basically my
analog RPM needle is always in the very lower portion of the gauge since it
thinks my engine is running 1/10th of it's actual speed. So for the time
being, all I have is the digital readout on the CPI controller, and to
re-iterate, cannot be used in the "Run-Up" mode.
That's ultimately a minor complaint, and I completely forgot about it when this
happened:
Takeoff - After running up the engine on the ground, and running it up again,
then again, to the point where I was confident the engine would not fall apart
on me upon takeoff, I taxi'd onto the active runway and gave her full power. I
noticed the same 3300 static RPM that I was getting on my previous ground run
ups. With my old setup (Stock 2100D with the magneto), my takeoff roll was
somewhere in the realm of 1500' on takeoff (I never actually tested it
exactly). With this new setup however, I reached 80 mph very easily almost
dead smack on the 1000' marker. I lifted off and noticed that the plane EASILY
accelerated to 100 mph (my desired climb out speed, not my Vy).
At this point, after accelerating to 100 mph, I increased the pull on the stick
to where I typically would with the stock 2100D to maintain 100 mph, however
this time, the plane kept accelerating. I gave it a little more back-stick,
and it STILL kept accelerating. By the time it stopped speeding up and was
maintaining 100 mph, I was in a pretty nose high attitude, and was seeing a
1000-1100 fpm rate of climb which felt like a dang rocket! Typically with the
stock setup, I would get somewhere in the realm of 700-800 fpm, sometimes 900
if I was very light on fuel, the weather was very cool and/or the plane was
freshly washed and waxed. This time I was maintaining 1000 fpm like it was
absolutely nothing, with an absolutely filthy airplane; covered in grease and
oil on the cowling and underside of the belly from all the work I have been
doing to it. Had the plane been washed and waxed, I am confident I could have
gotten 1200 fpm sustained. Remember this is a stock KR2S, with virtually no
aerodynamic upgrades at all. For those of you that are running the new AS50XX
airfoil, I'm sure your climbout will be even better.
Cruise/Tachometer Puzzle - I didn't expect my cruise speed to be that much
different, if at all, since I did not change my propeller and didn't plan on
changing my cruising RPM, however this actually became the most interesting
(and most fun) part of my entire test flight.
With my old setup, the tachometer was connected to the magneto itself, and at
3100-3200 RPM, I cruised around 108-110 knots, sometimes 111-112 if the plane
was washed and waxed and/or very light. These numbers come from me flying a
cardinal heading, taking the ground speed, making a 180 and flying the opposite
cardinal heading, taking the groundspeed, and averaging the two together.
There are reports out there of magneto tachometers being terribly inaccurate,
however I had never thought about this before and had always relied on mine
giving me accurate information. I just realized today that it must have been
off by an awful lot, possibly several hundred RPM, because this time when I
conducted my speed test, I set 3200 RPM (reading directly off the SDS CPI
ignition controller), and
indicated......119 knots?
You might say, "hold on Sam, how is this possible? To gain nearly 10 knots of
airspeed in cruise without changing a thing to the propeller?"
While I don't have any proof to back this up, my theory is that the Magneto
Tachometer was off by roughly 250 RPM, so what was indicating 3250 RPM was
3000 RPM in reality. The science behind this is listed below:
The airspeed generated by the propeller is directly related to it's pitch, it's
revolutions per minute, and the prop efficiency. This is a very simplified
version (I'm not a physics major after all), but should get my point across
none the less.
Prop Airspeed = Pitch x RPM x Prop_efficiency . In this case, we have a Sterba
propeller made of wood (approximately 75% efficiency), a 54" inch pitch (every
revolution moves the prop "forward" 54 inches). Let's compare the RPM values
of 3000 and 3250 RPM for this given propeller.
Prop Airspeed at 3000 RPM = 54 inches/rev x 3000 (rev/min) x 60 (min/hour) x (1
ft / 12 in) x (mile / 5280 feet) x 0.75 = 115 mph. Even though this may be a
very rough estimate, let's use 115 mph as our propeller airspeed at 3000 RPM
Prop Airspeed at 3250 RPM = 54 inches/rev x 3250 (rev/min) x 60 (min/hour) x (1
ft / 12 in) x (1 mile / 5280 feet) x 0.75 = 124.6 mph.
When compared to 3000 RPM, This is about a 9.6 mph difference, or an 8.5 knot
increase between the two RPM ranges. Almost the 9-11 knot increase I was
seeing today.
So does this mean exactly? It means that when I was running my magneto, I was
setting about 3100-3200 RPM indicated on the tachometer, but in reality the
engine was truly only spinning about about 3000 RPM. Now that I have the SDS
tachometer, which is an actual digital computer taking the measurements, I
realize that with the magneto, I was running the engine much slower than I
could have been. There is nothing wrong with cruising at 3000 RPM, I'm sure
the CHT's appreciate it, but when the recommended cruising speed by the engine
manufacturer is 3200 RPM, I'll be crazy not going to take full advantage and
get all the cruising speed out of it that I can. Now when I set 3200 RPM with
the SDS system, I know for a fact that I am getting a true 3200 RPM.
Another thing to consider is that since the magneto tachometer was off by
200-250 RPM, that meant that my static RPM (with the magneto) was much lower
than I originally thought; When it was indicating 3100-3150 RPM during takeoff,
this was likely only 2900-2950 RPM in reality. Now that I am getting 3300 with
the SDS ignition, that makes this setup that much more of an improvement, since
I really gained about 350-400 static RPM, as opposed to the 100-200 like I
originally thought.
Is it possible that the opposite could be true? That perhaps the SDS is
indicating 200-250 LOWER than the engine is actually spinning, so when
indicating 3200 RPM, the engine is running 3400 or so (hence the reason for the
increase in cruising speed). Maybe the magneto tachometer was right all along?
I'll let you guys be the judge on that one, but personally I trust the SDS
system more; it is much newer than a 30-40+ year old magneto, and is digital as
opposed to analog. In addition, I can recall times when running that the
magneto, that electrical interference would disrupt the tachometer, and it
would fluctuate ever so slightly, perhaps from 3000-3200 RPM without touching
the throttle in level flight. This tells me that right off the bat, the system
is prone to errors, and is likely not the best source of accuracy. I have not
heard of, nor witnessed such interference/inaccuracies with the SDS system.
Whatever the case, while I may be drastically overthinking the setup, today
when I was cruising at 3200 RPM indicated on the CPI controller gauge, I was
averaging 119 knots of True Airspeed, at around 2500' MSL.
I did not get a chance to test the duration of the electronic ignition without
power from the alternator, because my time was limited, and I was also having
too much fun flying after nearly 2 months out of the KR2S. But one day, I will
have that result.
The remainder of the flight was pretty uneventful; I cruised around Skagit
Airport (KBVS) and the beautiful surrounding area for about 30 minutes, then
returned to Anacortes (74S) for a full stop. All the while, I noticed no
abnormal oil temperatures, and the Cylinder Heads held up fine as well.
Coming in to land, ironically, I did have to go around once due to traffic
landing the opposite direction of me (winds were favoring 36, but the landing
traffic was coming in on 18, and I caught his radio call just as I was about to
turn final). What I mentioned earlier about the spool-up time still holds
true; It took just "that" much longer to achieve full power, unlike the stock
cam which was virtually instantaneous even at low power settings. However,
once the engine is spooled up past 2000 RPM, the engine feels remarkably
similar to the stock cam.
To Summarize:
Ground Runup - 3300 static RPM compared to 2900-2950 with the magneto and my
old stock setup. The CB2232 cam has quite a lope at idle, and spool up time
increases a fair amount at low power settings. The worst region is
1000-1500 where throttle response is a hair sloppy. From 1500-2000 the
response gets better, and above 2000 the engine performs basically like a stock
cam, with decent power response throughout.
Takeoff - 1000' takeoff roll vs. ~1500 with my stock engine. In addition, once
airborne, the airplane accelerates a lot quicker to 100 mph for climbout, and a
lot more stick pressure was required to maintain 100 mph to avoid accelerating
during climbout.
Climb - Easily achieved 1000-1100 fpm with an absolutely FILTHY airplane.
I am confident that I can (and will) get more rate of climb once I clean the
airplane. With my old setup, I usually averaged 700-800, 900 at the most. A
pretty significant increase to say the least.
Cruise - Saw 119 knots at 3200 RPM despite not changing the propeller or
cruising RPM speed (again, with a very filthy airplane). Determined that my
old tachometer on my magneto was likely reading 200-250 RPM higher than the
actual engine speed, because when running the magneto, I would still cruise at
3200 RPM, but this only achieved 108-110 knots TAS. When I throttled back to
3000 RPM with the SDS system, I was getting the same TAS as when the magneto
indicated 3200 RPM. There is obviously a 200 RPM difference between the two
systems, but considering the SDS is newer and digital, I trust it more than the
magneto.
Go Around Power Performance - You have to anticipate the power up a little more
than with the stock cam since the throttle response at low RPM (when coming
into land) is a touch sloppy, but as long as you are smooth with the throttle
and can make it up to about 1500-2000 RPM, you can then apply full power and
the engine will give you all that it's got for the go around!
Thank you all VERY much for all your helpful posts regarding my alternator; I
did get it fixed, and it puts out 12-13 VDC now. I hope this post isn't too
painful to read, and feel free to email me with any questions you have
regarding this setup, or the Revmaster engine in general. I am very happy to
be a KR owner, and be a part of this community.
V/R
Sam Spanovich
N6399U
74S, Anacortes WA
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 07:57:17 -0500
From: <robert7...@aol.com>
To: "'KRnet'" <krnet@list.krnet.org>
Cc: "'Samuel Spanovich'" <spanovich...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: KR> N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine
Message-ID: <009501d63294$054e8970$0feb9c50$@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Great post Sam, thanks for the level of detail.
Rob Schmitt
N1852Z
-----Original Message-----
From: KRnet <krnet-boun...@list.krnet.org> On Behalf Of Samuel Spanovich via
KRnet
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 2:45 AM
To: krnet@list.krnet.org
Cc: Samuel Spanovich <spanovich...@gmail.com>
Subject: KR> N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine
Get ready for another long read, because after fighting one obstacle after
another, I finally managed to get the plane airborne today with the new
upgrades, and all I can can say is....wow, was I impressed with the engine.
See below for details.
I won't beat a dead horse on the events leading up to this, so for a complete
background on the aircraft/engine, please see my previous post.
That said, here is my complete setup.
Revmaster 2100D
94mm AA Pistons/Cylinders
MOFOCO 041 Heads
CB 2232 Camshaft
SDS CPI Electronic Ignition (Dual)
AutoLite 4164 Spark Plugs
Sterba 54" x 54"
Fixed Timing at 25 BTDC (to replicate the magneto) Compression Ratio: 9.5
RAF48 Airfoil
Stock KR2S (~650 lbs empty weight)
Clear Skies
Light Winds On deck and aloft
ALT: 3024
Temperature: ~58F
Ground Testing/Runup - My previous post discussed getting a very powerful
3300 static RPM with the engine barely broken in. One thing I did not mention
(and didn't really notice until today) is just how different the idle/low power
throttle response is when compared to the stock VW cam. I set my idle at about
1000 rpm, and I will say, the CB 2232 has a pretty big lope at idle, which is
one change I DON'T like. It makes the engine sound sort of rough, but still
retains the throaty-ness at the same time. It isn't as big of a deal with the
propeller off the plane, but as soon as you add the extra load on the engine,
it is very noticeable. Where the stock VW cam had a pretty snappy throttle
response throughout the entire RPM range, the CB 2232 has a pretty sluggish
throttle response from about
1000-1500 RPM. Once above 1500 RPM, up to about 2000 the throttle response
gets better, and above 2000 RPM everything is fairly normal. The Cam does
state that the power band is from "1500-4500 RPM" range, but I did not think it
would be this literal. As soon as you hit 1500 RPM, everything smooths out
quite a bit, and by 2000 RPM it feels almost like the stock cam, with quick
throttle responses. This is very important when coming in to land, because in
the event of a botched landing and/or go-around, you have to really be prepared
to add power, because it will take that extra second to spool up. It doesn't
sound like much, but trust me, it is just enough to potentially get you into
trouble if you're late to add power.
If this lope or laggy throttle response is a potential annoyance to you, then
do not go with this cam. In that case, the CB2280 may not be a bad option,
since it has a decent power increase throughout the entire RPM range. However
if you don't mind the lope and want the extra throaty-ness of the CB2232, this
cam is a solid choice in my (limited) experience so far.
Regarding the SDS ignition, I set the timing to 25 BTDC since I knew the engine
would work in that configuration, since the magneto was fixed at this setting
throughout the entire RPM range. The SDS does allow the user to configure the
timing however they want at a particular RPM (10 BTDC at
1000 RPM, 12 at 1100 RPM, 25 at 2500 RPM, etc.) however since the engine was
designed for 25 degrees BTDC at all RPM ranges, I just stuck with this for now.
In addition, the SDS dual ignition incorporates a "Run-Up" feature, in which
you can shut off one ignition coil for approximately 3 seconds, then shut the
second coil off for approximately 3 more seconds, listening for the drop in RPM
very similar to a magneto check. Mine both checked out okay, and I noticed no
abnormalities between both ignition coils. The only downside (at least on the
basic CPI version) is that when you're in "Run-Up" mode, you cannot monitor the
RPM on the CPI controller to see just how much RPM is lost. You just kind of
have to listen, and gauge it appropriately. The CPI controller does include a
lead wire to hook up to an analog RPM gauge, which you could use to note the
drop in RPM, however the lead wire itself is calibrated in thousands of RPM,
not "hundreds" of RPM like my old gauge was (with the magneto). Basically my
analog RPM needle is always in the very lower portion of the gauge since it
thinks my engine is running 1/10th of it's actual speed. So for the time
being, all I have is the digital readout on the CPI controller, and to
re-iterate, cannot be used in the "Run-Up"
mode.
That's ultimately a minor complaint, and I completely forgot about it when this
happened:
Takeoff - After running up the engine on the ground, and running it up again,
then again, to the point where I was confident the engine would not fall apart
on me upon takeoff, I taxi'd onto the active runway and gave her full power. I
noticed the same 3300 static RPM that I was getting on my previous ground run
ups. With my old setup (Stock 2100D with the magneto), my takeoff roll was
somewhere in the realm of 1500' on takeoff (I never actually tested it
exactly). With this new setup however, I reached 80 mph very easily almost
dead smack on the 1000' marker. I lifted off and noticed that the plane EASILY
accelerated to 100 mph (my desired climb out speed, not my Vy).
At this point, after accelerating to 100 mph, I increased the pull on the stick
to where I typically would with the stock 2100D to maintain 100 mph, however
this time, the plane kept accelerating. I gave it a little more back-stick,
and it STILL kept accelerating. By the time it stopped speeding up and was
maintaining 100 mph, I was in a pretty nose high attitude, and was seeing a
1000-1100 fpm rate of climb which felt like a dang rocket!
Typically with the stock setup, I would get somewhere in the realm of
700-800 fpm, sometimes 900 if I was very light on fuel, the weather was very
cool and/or the plane was freshly washed and waxed. This time I was
maintaining 1000 fpm like it was absolutely nothing, with an absolutely filthy
airplane; covered in grease and oil on the cowling and underside of the belly
from all the work I have been doing to it. Had the plane been washed and
waxed, I am confident I could have gotten 1200 fpm sustained.
Remember this is a stock KR2S, with virtually no aerodynamic upgrades at all.
For those of you that are running the new AS50XX airfoil, I'm sure your
climbout will be even better.
Cruise/Tachometer Puzzle - I didn't expect my cruise speed to be that much
different, if at all, since I did not change my propeller and didn't plan on
changing my cruising RPM, however this actually became the most interesting
(and most fun) part of my entire test flight.
With my old setup, the tachometer was connected to the magneto itself, and at
3100-3200 RPM, I cruised around 108-110 knots, sometimes 111-112 if the plane
was washed and waxed and/or very light. These numbers come from me flying a
cardinal heading, taking the ground speed, making a 180 and flying the opposite
cardinal heading, taking the groundspeed, and averaging the two together.
There are reports out there of magneto tachometers being terribly inaccurate,
however I had never thought about this before and had always relied on mine
giving me accurate information. I just realized today that it must have been
off by an awful lot, possibly several hundred RPM, because this time when I
conducted my speed test, I set 3200 RPM (reading directly off the SDS CPI
ignition controller), and
indicated......119 knots?
You might say, "hold on Sam, how is this possible? To gain nearly 10 knots of
airspeed in cruise without changing a thing to the propeller?"
While I don't have any proof to back this up, my theory is that the Magneto
Tachometer was off by roughly 250 RPM, so what was indicating 3250 RPM was
3000 RPM in reality. The science behind this is listed below:
The airspeed generated by the propeller is directly related to it's pitch, it's
revolutions per minute, and the prop efficiency. This is a very simplified
version (I'm not a physics major after all), but should get my point across
none the less.
Prop Airspeed = Pitch x RPM x Prop_efficiency . In this case, we have a Sterba
propeller made of wood (approximately 75% efficiency), a 54" inch pitch (every
revolution moves the prop "forward" 54 inches). Let's compare the RPM values
of 3000 and 3250 RPM for this given propeller.
Prop Airspeed at 3000 RPM = 54 inches/rev x 3000 (rev/min) x 60 (min/hour) x
(1 ft / 12 in) x (mile / 5280 feet) x 0.75 = 115 mph. Even though this may be
a very rough estimate, let's use 115 mph as our propeller airspeed at
3000 RPM
Prop Airspeed at 3250 RPM = 54 inches/rev x 3250 (rev/min) x 60 (min/hour) x
(1 ft / 12 in) x (1 mile / 5280 feet) x 0.75 = 124.6 mph.
When compared to 3000 RPM, This is about a 9.6 mph difference, or an 8.5 knot
increase between the two RPM ranges. Almost the 9-11 knot increase I was
seeing today.
So does this mean exactly? It means that when I was running my magneto, I was
setting about 3100-3200 RPM indicated on the tachometer, but in reality the
engine was truly only spinning about about 3000 RPM. Now that I have the SDS
tachometer, which is an actual digital computer taking the measurements, I
realize that with the magneto, I was running the engine much slower than I
could have been. There is nothing wrong with cruising at 3000 RPM, I'm sure
the CHT's appreciate it, but when the recommended cruising speed by the engine
manufacturer is 3200 RPM, I'll be crazy not going to take full advantage and
get all the cruising speed out of it that I can.
Now when I set 3200 RPM with the SDS system, I know for a fact that I am
getting a true 3200 RPM.
Another thing to consider is that since the magneto tachometer was off by
200-250 RPM, that meant that my static RPM (with the magneto) was much lower
than I originally thought; When it was indicating 3100-3150 RPM during takeoff,
this was likely only 2900-2950 RPM in reality. Now that I am getting 3300 with
the SDS ignition, that makes this setup that much more of an improvement, since
I really gained about 350-400 static RPM, as opposed to the 100-200 like I
originally thought.
Is it possible that the opposite could be true? That perhaps the SDS is
indicating 200-250 LOWER than the engine is actually spinning, so when
indicating 3200 RPM, the engine is running 3400 or so (hence the reason for the
increase in cruising speed). Maybe the magneto tachometer was right all along?
I'll let you guys be the judge on that one, but personally I trust the SDS
system more; it is much newer than a 30-40+ year old magneto, and is digital as
opposed to analog. In addition, I can recall times when running that the
magneto, that electrical interference would disrupt the tachometer, and it
would fluctuate ever so slightly, perhaps from 3000-3200 RPM without touching
the throttle in level flight. This tells me that right off the bat, the system
is prone to errors, and is likely not the best source of accuracy. I have not
heard of, nor witnessed such interference/inaccuracies with the SDS system.
Whatever the case, while I may be drastically overthinking the setup, today
when I was cruising at 3200 RPM indicated on the CPI controller gauge, I was
averaging 119 knots of True Airspeed, at around 2500' MSL.
I did not get a chance to test the duration of the electronic ignition without
power from the alternator, because my time was limited, and I was also having
too much fun flying after nearly 2 months out of the KR2S. But one day, I will
have that result.
The remainder of the flight was pretty uneventful; I cruised around Skagit
Airport (KBVS) and the beautiful surrounding area for about 30 minutes, then
returned to Anacortes (74S) for a full stop. All the while, I noticed no
abnormal oil temperatures, and the Cylinder Heads held up fine as well.
Coming in to land, ironically, I did have to go around once due to traffic
landing the opposite direction of me (winds were favoring 36, but the landing
traffic was coming in on 18, and I caught his radio call just as I was about to
turn final). What I mentioned earlier about the spool-up time still holds
true; It took just "that" much longer to achieve full power, unlike the stock
cam which was virtually instantaneous even at low power settings. However,
once the engine is spooled up past 2000 RPM, the engine feels remarkably
similar to the stock cam.
To Summarize:
Ground Runup - 3300 static RPM compared to 2900-2950 with the magneto and my
old stock setup. The CB2232 cam has quite a lope at idle, and spool up time
increases a fair amount at low power settings. The worst region is
1000-1500 where throttle response is a hair sloppy. From 1500-2000 the
response gets better, and above 2000 the engine performs basically like a stock
cam, with decent power response throughout.
Takeoff - 1000' takeoff roll vs. ~1500 with my stock engine. In addition, once
airborne, the airplane accelerates a lot quicker to 100 mph for climbout, and a
lot more stick pressure was required to maintain 100 mph to avoid accelerating
during climbout.
Climb - Easily achieved 1000-1100 fpm with an absolutely FILTHY airplane.
I am confident that I can (and will) get more rate of climb once I clean the
airplane. With my old setup, I usually averaged 700-800, 900 at the most.
A pretty significant increase to say the least.
Cruise - Saw 119 knots at 3200 RPM despite not changing the propeller or
cruising RPM speed (again, with a very filthy airplane). Determined that my
old tachometer on my magneto was likely reading 200-250 RPM higher than the
actual engine speed, because when running the magneto, I would still cruise at
3200 RPM, but this only achieved 108-110 knots TAS. When I throttled back to
3000 RPM with the SDS system, I was getting the same TAS as when the magneto
indicated 3200 RPM. There is obviously a 200 RPM difference between the two
systems, but considering the SDS is newer and digital, I trust it more than the
magneto.
Go Around Power Performance - You have to anticipate the power up a little more
than with the stock cam since the throttle response at low RPM (when coming
into land) is a touch sloppy, but as long as you are smooth with the throttle
and can make it up to about 1500-2000 RPM, you can then apply full power and
the engine will give you all that it's got for the go around!
Thank you all VERY much for all your helpful posts regarding my alternator; I
did get it fixed, and it puts out 12-13 VDC now. I hope this post isn't too
painful to read, and feel free to email me with any questions you have
regarding this setup, or the Revmaster engine in general. I am very happy to
be a KR owner, and be a part of this community.
V/R
Sam Spanovich
N6399U
74S, Anacortes WA
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at
https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:04:41 +0200
From: Jeff Scott <jscott.pla...@gmx.com>
To: KRnet <krnet@list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine
Message-ID:
<trinity-1d959c39-d76e-4081-a9c2-9b437f4167c1-1590411881621@msvc-mesg-gmx023>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/private/krnet_list.krnet.org/attachments/20200525/6cb523c0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 10:28:06 -0400
From: Jeff York <jeffyor...@gmail.com>
To: KRnet <krnet@list.krnet.org>
Subject: Re: KR> N6399U Flight Test Report with New Engine
Message-ID:
<CAKfBJt5MZC6uncuBztbHwR12HCUVNbzu+HA=m4tiw1ovwwo...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I like you over detailed posts. But, I'm an engineer and everyone tells me I
over detail. We get this need to over detail after years of presenting
overviews and then having to go back several times to give others more detail.
Eventually we start giving more and more detail in order to satisfy a few and
this becomes a lot of detail and now we deal with people complaining that we
are over detailed.
So, you cant please everyone.
Jeff York
On Mon, May 25, 2020, 4:04 AM Samuel Spanovich via KRnet <
krnet@list.krnet.org> wrote:
> Get ready for another long read, because after fighting one obstacle
> after another, I finally managed to get the plane airborne today with
> the new upgrades, and all I can can say is....wow, was I impressed
> with the engine. See below for details.
>
> I won't beat a dead horse on the events leading up to this, so for a
> complete background on the aircraft/engine, please see my previous post.
> That said, here is my complete setup.
>
> Revmaster 2100D
> 94mm AA Pistons/Cylinders
> MOFOCO 041 Heads
> CB 2232 Camshaft
> SDS CPI Electronic Ignition (Dual)
> AutoLite 4164 Spark Plugs
> Sterba 54" x 54"
> Fixed Timing at 25 BTDC (to replicate the magneto) Compression Ratio:
> 9.5
>
> RAF48 Airfoil
> Stock KR2S (~650 lbs empty weight)
>
> Clear Skies
> Light Winds On deck and aloft
> ALT: 3024
> Temperature: ~58F
>
> Ground Testing/Runup - My previous post discussed getting a very
> powerful
> 3300 static RPM with the engine barely broken in. One thing I did not
> mention (and didn't really notice until today) is just how different
> the idle/low power throttle response is when compared to the stock VW
> cam. I set my idle at about 1000 rpm, and I will say, the CB 2232 has
> a pretty big lope at idle, which is one change I DON'T like. It makes
> the engine sound sort of rough, but still retains the throaty-ness at
> the same time. It isn't as big of a deal with the propeller off the
> plane, but as soon as you add the extra load on the engine, it is very
> noticeable. Where the stock VW cam had a pretty snappy throttle
> response throughout the entire RPM range, the CB 2232 has a pretty
> sluggish throttle response from about
> 1000-1500 RPM. Once above 1500 RPM, up to about 2000 the throttle
> response gets better, and above 2000 RPM everything is fairly normal.
> The Cam does state that the power band is from "1500-4500 RPM" range,
> but I did not think it would be this literal. As soon as you hit 1500
> RPM, everything smooths out quite a bit, and by 2000 RPM it feels
> almost like the stock cam, with quick throttle responses. This is
> very important when coming in to land, because in the event of a
> botched landing and/or go-around, you have to really be prepared to
> add power, because it will take that extra second to spool up. It
> doesn't sound like much, but trust me, it is just enough to potentially get
> you into trouble if you're late to add power.
>
> If this lope or laggy throttle response is a potential annoyance to
> you, then do not go with this cam. In that case, the CB2280 may not
> be a bad option, since it has a decent power increase throughout the
> entire RPM range. However if you don't mind the lope and want the
> extra throaty-ness of the CB2232, this cam is a solid choice in my
> (limited) experience so far.
>
> Regarding the SDS ignition, I set the timing to 25 BTDC since I knew
> the engine would work in that configuration, since the magneto was
> fixed at this setting throughout the entire RPM range. The SDS does
> allow the user to configure the timing however they want at a
> particular RPM (10 BTDC at
> 1000 RPM, 12 at 1100 RPM, 25 at 2500 RPM, etc.) however since the
> engine was designed for 25 degrees BTDC at all RPM ranges, I just
> stuck with this for now.
>
> In addition, the SDS dual ignition incorporates a "Run-Up" feature, in
> which you can shut off one ignition coil for approximately 3 seconds,
> then shut the second coil off for approximately 3 more seconds,
> listening for the drop in RPM very similar to a magneto check. Mine
> both checked out okay, and I noticed no abnormalities between both
> ignition coils. The only downside (at least on the basic CPI version)
> is that when you're in "Run-Up" mode, you cannot monitor the RPM on
> the CPI controller to see just how much RPM is lost. You just kind of
> have to listen, and gauge it appropriately. The CPI controller does
> include a lead wire to hook up to an analog RPM gauge, which you could
> use to note the drop in RPM, however the lead wire itself is
> calibrated in thousands of RPM, not "hundreds" of RPM like my old
> gauge was (with the magneto). Basically my analog RPM needle is
> always in the very lower portion of the gauge since it thinks my
> engine is running 1/10th of it's actual speed. So for the time being,
> all I have is the digital readout on the CPI controller, and to re-iterate,
> cannot be used in the "Run-Up" mode.
>
> That's ultimately a minor complaint, and I completely forgot about it
> when this happened:
>
> Takeoff - After running up the engine on the ground, and running it up
> again, then again, to the point where I was confident the engine would
> not fall apart on me upon takeoff, I taxi'd onto the active runway and
> gave her full power. I noticed the same 3300 static RPM that I was
> getting on my previous ground run ups. With my old setup (Stock 2100D
> with the magneto), my takeoff roll was somewhere in the realm of 1500'
> on takeoff (I never actually tested it exactly). With this new setup
> however, I reached 80 mph very easily almost dead smack on the 1000'
> marker. I lifted off and noticed that the plane EASILY accelerated to
> 100 mph (my desired climb out speed, not my Vy).
>
> At this point, after accelerating to 100 mph, I increased the pull on
> the stick to where I typically would with the stock 2100D to maintain
> 100 mph, however this time, the plane kept accelerating. I gave it a
> little more back-stick, and it STILL kept accelerating. By the time
> it stopped speeding up and was maintaining 100 mph, I was in a pretty
> nose high attitude, and was seeing a 1000-1100 fpm rate of climb which
> felt like a dang rocket! Typically with the stock setup, I would get
> somewhere in the realm of 700-800 fpm, sometimes 900 if I was very
> light on fuel, the weather was very cool and/or the plane was freshly
> washed and waxed. This time I was maintaining 1000 fpm like it was
> absolutely nothing, with an absolutely filthy airplane; covered in
> grease and oil on the cowling and underside of the belly from all the
> work I have been doing to it. Had the plane been washed and waxed, I
> am confident I could have gotten 1200 fpm sustained. Remember this is
> a stock KR2S, with virtually no aerodynamic upgrades at all. For
> those of you that are running the new AS50XX airfoil, I'm sure your climbout
> will be even better.
>
> Cruise/Tachometer Puzzle - I didn't expect my cruise speed to be that
> much different, if at all, since I did not change my propeller and
> didn't plan on changing my cruising RPM, however this actually became
> the most interesting (and most fun) part of my entire test flight.
>
> With my old setup, the tachometer was connected to the magneto itself,
> and at 3100-3200 RPM, I cruised around 108-110 knots, sometimes
> 111-112 if the plane was washed and waxed and/or very light. These
> numbers come from me flying a cardinal heading, taking the ground
> speed, making a 180 and flying the opposite cardinal heading, taking
> the groundspeed, and averaging the two together. There are reports
> out there of magneto tachometers being terribly inaccurate, however I
> had never thought about this before and had always relied on mine
> giving me accurate information. I just realized today that it must
> have been off by an awful lot, possibly several hundred RPM, because
> this time when I conducted my speed test, I set 3200 RPM (reading
> directly off the SDS CPI ignition controller), and
> indicated......119 knots?
>
> You might say, "hold on Sam, how is this possible? To gain nearly 10
> knots of airspeed in cruise without changing a thing to the propeller?"
>
> While I don't have any proof to back this up, my theory is that the
> Magneto Tachometer was off by roughly 250 RPM, so what was indicating
> 3250 RPM was
> 3000 RPM in reality. The science behind this is listed below:
>
> The airspeed generated by the propeller is directly related to it's
> pitch, it's revolutions per minute, and the prop efficiency. This is
> a very simplified version (I'm not a physics major after all), but
> should get my point across none the less.
>
> Prop Airspeed = Pitch x RPM x Prop_efficiency . In this case, we have
> a Sterba propeller made of wood (approximately 75% efficiency), a 54"
> inch pitch (every revolution moves the prop "forward" 54 inches).
> Let's compare the RPM values of 3000 and 3250 RPM for this given propeller.
>
> Prop Airspeed at 3000 RPM = 54 inches/rev x 3000 (rev/min) x 60
> (min/hour) x (1 ft / 12 in) x (mile / 5280 feet) x 0.75 = 115 mph.
> Even though this may be a very rough estimate, let's use 115 mph as
> our propeller airspeed at 3000 RPM
>
> Prop Airspeed at 3250 RPM = 54 inches/rev x 3250 (rev/min) x 60
> (min/hour) x (1 ft / 12 in) x (1 mile / 5280 feet) x 0.75 = 124.6 mph.
>
> When compared to 3000 RPM, This is about a 9.6 mph difference, or an
> 8.5 knot increase between the two RPM ranges. Almost the 9-11 knot
> increase I was seeing today.
>
> So does this mean exactly? It means that when I was running my
> magneto, I was setting about 3100-3200 RPM indicated on the
> tachometer, but in reality the engine was truly only spinning about
> about 3000 RPM. Now that I have the SDS tachometer, which is an
> actual digital computer taking the measurements, I realize that with
> the magneto, I was running the engine much slower than I could have
> been. There is nothing wrong with cruising at 3000 RPM, I'm sure the
> CHT's appreciate it, but when the recommended cruising speed by the
> engine manufacturer is 3200 RPM, I'll be crazy not going to take full
> advantage and get all the cruising speed out of it that I can. Now
> when I set 3200 RPM with the SDS system, I know for a fact that I am getting
> a true 3200 RPM.
>
> Another thing to consider is that since the magneto tachometer was off
> by
> 200-250 RPM, that meant that my static RPM (with the magneto) was much
> lower than I originally thought; When it was indicating 3100-3150 RPM
> during takeoff, this was likely only 2900-2950 RPM in reality. Now
> that I am getting 3300 with the SDS ignition, that makes this setup
> that much more of an improvement, since I really gained about 350-400
> static RPM, as opposed to the 100-200 like I originally thought.
>
> Is it possible that the opposite could be true? That perhaps the SDS
> is indicating 200-250 LOWER than the engine is actually spinning, so
> when indicating 3200 RPM, the engine is running 3400 or so (hence the
> reason for the increase in cruising speed). Maybe the magneto
> tachometer was right all along? I'll let you guys be the judge on
> that one, but personally I trust the SDS system more; it is much newer
> than a 30-40+ year old magneto, and is digital as opposed to analog.
> In addition, I can recall times when running that the magneto, that
> electrical interference would disrupt the tachometer, and it would
> fluctuate ever so slightly, perhaps from 3000-3200 RPM without
> touching the throttle in level flight. This tells me that right off
> the bat, the system is prone to errors, and is likely not the best
> source of accuracy. I have not heard of, nor witnessed such
> interference/inaccuracies with the SDS system.
>
> Whatever the case, while I may be drastically overthinking the setup,
> today when I was cruising at 3200 RPM indicated on the CPI controller
> gauge, I was averaging 119 knots of True Airspeed, at around 2500' MSL.
>
> I did not get a chance to test the duration of the electronic ignition
> without power from the alternator, because my time was limited, and I
> was also having too much fun flying after nearly 2 months out of the
> KR2S. But one day, I will have that result.
>
> The remainder of the flight was pretty uneventful; I cruised around
> Skagit Airport (KBVS) and the beautiful surrounding area for about 30
> minutes, then returned to Anacortes (74S) for a full stop. All the
> while, I noticed no abnormal oil temperatures, and the Cylinder Heads held up
> fine as well.
>
> Coming in to land, ironically, I did have to go around once due to
> traffic landing the opposite direction of me (winds were favoring 36,
> but the landing traffic was coming in on 18, and I caught his radio
> call just as I was about to turn final). What I mentioned earlier
> about the spool-up time still holds true; It took just "that" much
> longer to achieve full power, unlike the stock cam which was virtually
> instantaneous even at low power settings. However, once the engine is
> spooled up past 2000 RPM, the engine feels remarkably similar to the stock
> cam.
>
>
> To Summarize:
>
> Ground Runup - 3300 static RPM compared to 2900-2950 with the magneto
> and my old stock setup. The CB2232 cam has quite a lope at idle, and
> spool up time increases a fair amount at low power settings. The
> worst region is
> 1000-1500 where throttle response is a hair sloppy. From 1500-2000
> the response gets better, and above 2000 the engine performs basically
> like a stock cam, with decent power response throughout.
>
> Takeoff - 1000' takeoff roll vs. ~1500 with my stock engine. In
> addition, once airborne, the airplane accelerates a lot quicker to 100
> mph for climbout, and a lot more stick pressure was required to
> maintain 100 mph to avoid accelerating during climbout.
>
> Climb - Easily achieved 1000-1100 fpm with an absolutely FILTHY airplane.
> I am confident that I can (and will) get more rate of climb once I
> clean the airplane. With my old setup, I usually averaged 700-800,
> 900 at the most. A pretty significant increase to say the least.
>
> Cruise - Saw 119 knots at 3200 RPM despite not changing the propeller
> or cruising RPM speed (again, with a very filthy airplane).
> Determined that my old tachometer on my magneto was likely reading
> 200-250 RPM higher than the actual engine speed, because when running
> the magneto, I would still cruise at 3200 RPM, but this only achieved
> 108-110 knots TAS. When I throttled back to 3000 RPM with the SDS
> system, I was getting the same TAS as when the magneto indicated 3200
> RPM. There is obviously a 200 RPM difference between the two systems,
> but considering the SDS is newer and digital, I trust it more than the
> magneto.
>
> Go Around Power Performance - You have to anticipate the power up a
> little more than with the stock cam since the throttle response at low
> RPM (when coming into land) is a touch sloppy, but as long as you are
> smooth with the throttle and can make it up to about 1500-2000 RPM,
> you can then apply full power and the engine will give you all that it's got
> for the go around!
>
> Thank you all VERY much for all your helpful posts regarding my
> alternator; I did get it fixed, and it puts out 12-13 VDC now. I hope
> this post isn't too painful to read, and feel free to email me with
> any questions you have regarding this setup, or the Revmaster engine
> in general. I am very happy to be a KR owner, and be a part of this
> community.
>
> V/R
>
> Sam Spanovich
> N6399U
> 74S, Anacortes WA
> _______________________________________________
> Search the KRnet Archives at
> https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
> Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to
> change options.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
> krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
KRnet mailing list
KRnet@list.krnet.org
http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org
------------------------------
End of KRnet Digest, Vol 8, Issue 104
*************************************
_______________________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at https://www.mail-archive.com/krnet@list.krnet.org/.
Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html.
see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
options.
To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
