VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #31  
Old 12-02-2017, 06:10 PM
rongawer's Avatar
rongawer rongawer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
My original comment was based on the other one above.
I stand correct. Though there is still a large difference between the generation of electrical power for the 912iS and the UL power.

When the engine was being considered for the RV-12, the electrical scheme used on the UL Power at that time was one of the disqualifying factors. It may be different now (11 years later).
ok, I’ll bite, it’s divergent from the thread, but you keep making statements that don’t appear to be factual. Both the 912iS and the UL Power engine use a permanent magnet alternator, both use a solid state VR, both are 12VDC. The Rotax is a 30A, the UL has a 30A and 50A option. The rotax has the alternator pulley driven, the UL is mounted on the end of the crankshaft. What’s the large difference?

And for the record, the UL260 and UL350 were both designed with a permanent magnet alternator in their initial version. Van’s may have dismissed the UL Power engine for a number of reasons, but if it was based on a perceived unreliable electrical or ignition scheme, then that decision was poorly made.
__________________
Ron Gawer

- RV12, N975G, SN 120840, Build in progress...finishing up.
- BE58, N1975G, stimulating the economy one flight at a time.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-02-2017, 06:20 PM
waterboy2110 waterboy2110 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
Rotax has clearly specified the procedures for filing a warranty claim. The documentation is supplied with every new engine and is also available in digital form on line to all engine owners. In this case the second engine was I presume purchased directly from a dealer, and not Van's (CPS?). If something failed on that engine, the dealer would not personally warranty it. They would process it the exact same way that this incident needed to be.
Scott - Thanks for the reply. I certainly appreciate your input and insight even with the standard "my opinion" disclaimer.

To be clear -
I called Vans, they said call Lockwood, Lockwood said fill out the word doc and send it to them and after several failed attempts to verify they received the doc I turned to Bryan who said he could handle it. IMO - I've done what needed to be done. I have been told by Bryan that he discussed this with the factory on a recent trip there. I'm confident I've followed the warranty correctly.

I did buy the failed engine from Vans. I spoke to them on three occasions and they really seemed to have no idea on what to tell the customer.
__________________
http://jimsrv.blogspot.com
PP - ASEL
Instrument Rating
A&P / Rotax iRMT 9 Series Maintenance
RV12 Flying.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-02-2017, 06:37 PM
waterboy2110 waterboy2110 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewR View Post
I see the EFIS data, but it doesn't seem to include RPM. If your setup is the same as others have described here, with takeoff and climb RPM below 5200 at WOT, you were right in the zone Rotax says in SL-912-016 to avoid due to the risk of detonation and/or preignition.
- high engine load (<5200 RPM at WOT)
- high CHT
- probably high intake air temperature

"one or more parameter is exceeded and/or a combination at or near the
limit can result in a higher risk of engine damage"

https://legacy.rotaxowner.com/si_tb_...912-016-r1.pdf

if I owned a RV-12 (I own a different Rotax powered aircraft) I would be taking notice of this service letter and making sure I had 5200 rpm minimum on takeoff/climb out.
Hi Andrew - max RPM was 5098. I've posted the graph on the blog. I have read that document. Thanks for asking for this data!
__________________
http://jimsrv.blogspot.com
PP - ASEL
Instrument Rating
A&P / Rotax iRMT 9 Series Maintenance
RV12 Flying.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-02-2017, 08:04 PM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 7,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rongawer View Post
And for the record, the UL260 and UL350 were both designed with a permanent magnet alternator in their initial version. Van’s may have dismissed the UL Power engine for a number of reasons, but if it was based on a perceived unreliable electrical or ignition scheme, then that decision was poorly made.
That wasn't what I was remembering when it was originally looked at so that was what caused my confusing post , but that was more than 10 years ago (sorry, my memory is not what it used to be).
Not really relevant to this thread though, anyway.

And as I mentioned already, that was a minor reason.
The major reason being a desire to have an engine with a long term proven track record and available in a certified version for use on S-LSA's
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")

Last edited by rvbuilder2002 : 12-02-2017 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-02-2017, 08:19 PM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 7,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy2110 View Post
I did buy the failed engine from Vans. I spoke to them on three occasions and they really seemed to have no idea on what to tell the customer.
I understand that.
Like I already said, it is not Van's warranty (just like the business you bought your replacement engine from, it is not their warranty for your replacement either).

There is a process that Rotax requires be followed.
You may have gotten someone on the phone at Van's that doesn't know much about it, but in the end that doesn't really matter. The warranty process has to be handled through one of the designated U.S. dealers... Lockwood Aviation is one of those, and from what you have said, it was suggested that you contact them so you were not given bad information, you are just not happy with the way they handled it.
If they did not properly follow procedures after you contacted them that is frustrating for sure, but from what you have written it sounds like in the end your claim either is under review or has been.
Hopefully you don't hold Van's accountable for what happens at another business 2500 miles to the east. Van's has done a lot of business with Lockwood over the years and has a good working relationship with them and has always gotten great service there. That is one reason they are often recommended.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-02-2017, 08:55 PM
waterboy2110 waterboy2110 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 200
Default

Thanks Scott - Dean was the guy at lockwood. That's all I know about him.
__________________
http://jimsrv.blogspot.com
PP - ASEL
Instrument Rating
A&P / Rotax iRMT 9 Series Maintenance
RV12 Flying.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:00 PM
waterboy2110 waterboy2110 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewR View Post
I see the EFIS data, but it doesn't seem to include RPM. If your setup is the same as others have described here, with takeoff and climb RPM below 5200 at WOT, you were right in the zone Rotax says in SL-912-016 to avoid due to the risk of detonation and/or preignition.
- high engine load (<5200 RPM at WOT)
- high CHT
- probably high intake air temperature

"one or more parameter is exceeded and/or a combination at or near the
limit can result in a higher risk of engine damage"

https://legacy.rotaxowner.com/si_tb_...912-016-r1.pdf

if I owned a RV-12 (I own a different Rotax powered aircraft) I would be taking notice of this service letter and making sure I had 5200 rpm minimum on takeoff/climb out.

Hi Andrew - I've read that document before and re-read it again after discussing it with my Rotax partner this morning. I re-read your post and now it makes more sense. In essence, Vans is having you set the pitch so that the engine is running in a dangerous area of operation. Coupled with what I consider a poor design for that cooling shroud most likely pushed it over the edge.

My Rotax buddy has been harping on me from the beginning to pitch the prop for a higher RPM - I liked the 71.4 degrees that Vans has you set it to because it gets me good cruise performance. When we set it for 5300 static the plane would barley cruise in the mid 90's. My box truck Cessna will do that. Also, only when you are unwinding this engine at max RPM (any engine for that matter) do you see rated horsepower. I'll have to double check but at 5200 RPM I think the engine is only putting out 80HP.

I have a Keiv 3 blade prop that we're going to try out to see if we can get the static RPM up and get decent cruise performance. My buddy says it's all they used in the UA on Rotax engines.
__________________
http://jimsrv.blogspot.com
PP - ASEL
Instrument Rating
A&P / Rotax iRMT 9 Series Maintenance
RV12 Flying.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:51 PM
Piper J3's Avatar
Piper J3 Piper J3 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Hinckley, Ohio
Posts: 729
Default

Rotax 912 % Power Graph...
-
__________________
-
Jim Stricker
Hinckley, Ohio
P/ASEL 1970 Sport Pilot since '04
80 hrs Flying Aeronca Chief 11AC
1130 hrs Flying 46 Piper J-3 Cub
LSRM-A Certificate 2016
RV-12 E-LSA #120058 AWC 7/12 Bought Flying 10/15 with 48TT - Hobbs now 317
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:01 PM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 7,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy2110 View Post
Hi Andrew - max RPM was 5098. I've posted the graph on the blog. I have read that document. Thanks for asking for this data!
Here I assume: http://912ulsenginefailure.blogspot.com/

Jim, what does the X-axis represent, and in what units?

In your first post you stated:

There's also the fact that the engine post failure would not pass ignition check.

Could you tell us a bit more about that check? And where is the top spark plug from the failed cylinder?

Do you have a record of individual CHT?
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-08-2017, 02:02 AM
AndrewR AndrewR is online now
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ballarat, VIC
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
In essence, Vans is having you set the pitch so that the engine is running in a dangerous area of operation. Coupled with what I consider a poor design for that cooling shroud most likely pushed it over the edge.
Yes. You might find a smoking gun cause, but Rotax documentation suggests the situation described is enough on its own to cause detonation, if you are unlucky.

I have my doubts that the cooling shroud was a contributor. I think the head is probably the critical temperature. The head is limited to 130C. I think the limit on the barrel temperature is 200C but I have not heard of anyone measuring it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:25 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.