Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
TSwezey?
- Thread starter fmarino1976
- Start date
What did you end up doing for W&B? Did you end up putting that 100lb sheet of lead ballast in the baggage compartment, or did you do some reworking FFW? Just curious what the final numbers came out to be.
Congrats on flying, but please be extra vigilant and carefull.
Best Regards,
Stein
Congrats on flying, but please be extra vigilant and carefull.
Best Regards,
Stein
The nose wheel is cocked. Dave said he gassed it a little just before touch down and my guess is the prop air pushed it side ways. He did not say he had any vibrations.
We ended up putting the 100lbs in the baggage area. Dave said he didn't have to fight the heavy nose at all but he did carry a little power until he was in ground effect with a small burst of power just before the wheels hit. He said the plane handled well and was very docile.
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
Concern
Congrats on the flight. However, I cannot be the only one concerned about the weight of this plane. Looks like about 40% heavier than the Vans plane and other 10's. The obvious result is a reduction in useful load which includes fuel.
Todd, enjoy, but be careful.
Congrats on the flight. However, I cannot be the only one concerned about the weight of this plane. Looks like about 40% heavier than the Vans plane and other 10's. The obvious result is a reduction in useful load which includes fuel.
Todd, enjoy, but be careful.
It is 35% heavier with 35% more power. We will obviously have to reduce passengers or fuel depending on the flight.
Last edited:
Well, one of these days I will get to fly my plane! I went there this morning to get it ready to fly. I changed some tubing runs along the top of the engine and got that all straightened out. I fired up the engine and it was running rough. I tried leaning it out thinking that some of the plugs were fouled. Nope. Started pulling plugs and the first plug I pulled was in bad shape. I replaced it and continued checking plugs. The first was the only one in bad shape. Started the engine and it ran great. Decided to taxi a little and the left brake pedal felt a little soft. One pump and it was fine. Taxied around for 15 minutes and everything was fine. I still had that little feeling going on in my head though. I had to leave in 35 minutes so I didn't feel comfortable trying to rush even a high speed taxi. I came back around 4:00 pm to do some high speed taxis. The first one was ok but I needed a good amount of right rudder compared to what Dave said he needed on his flight. Next run went better except when it was time to stop the pedals practically went to the floor. Pump, pump, pump and thank god that I am doing this at Savannah instead of a small airport. I got the plane back to the shade port and took the wheel pants off. No fluid leaking. Must be air bubbles. We have not had any problems with the brakes in 15 hours of engine run ups and simulated take off accelerations. So Tuesday is bleed the brakes again day.
Geico266
Well Known Member
The brakes on -10s can heat up very fast. With your plane being 35% heavier it is gonne be worse yet. Make sure you are not "dragging" the brakes when you are taxiing or doing a high speed run, the brakes will really fade when hot. I make it a point to put my feet on the put side of the peddles to try and keep all pressure off the brakes.
Good luck, keep us posted.
Good luck, keep us posted.
Todd, was the bad plug showing signs of pre-ignition or detonation? I'd be very worried about a plug going bad in such a short number of hours. I'd want to know why.
Remember, you never have to go flying. Never let anything else rush you during test flying. It can be done tomorrow.
Remember, you never have to go flying. Never let anything else rush you during test flying. It can be done tomorrow.
2000 posts Ross!
The plug went bad from either one of two things Dave forgot to turn the battery manager on and the computer/efis ran the battery down which really screws up the EFI/ignition or the way I installed a PCV valve. I have since removed the valve.
Larry you are right we are 35% heavier but our testing weight is well under the max weight for the -10. We do need to make sure we are off of them on taxis and take-offs.
The plug went bad from either one of two things Dave forgot to turn the battery manager on and the computer/efis ran the battery down which really screws up the EFI/ignition or the way I installed a PCV valve. I have since removed the valve.
Larry you are right we are 35% heavier but our testing weight is well under the max weight for the -10. We do need to make sure we are off of them on taxis and take-offs.
I got out to the airport about 11am today and started working on the brakes. The left would pump up so it was probably a small air bubble which was taken care of rather quickly. The right would just go to the firewall. I looked at the brake and fluid was pumping out. Seal is shot! I took the assembly apart and the seal was reformed to a rectangular cross section instead of a round one. Wow somebody cooked the brakes! A quick trip to NAPA and new O-ring in hand. Put it on and now the fun part of bleeding the brakes. The brakes were finally finished about 3:30. Did a little Hangar talking with James Kleen who has just finished flying off the hours in his RV-8. Back to work. I had to change a spacer for our second timimg sensor which took all of three minutes. Now the fun part of putting all the screws back in the cowl! Get everything back together and try to go flying! The BMA EFIS/One will not boot! Ten minutes of turning it off and on finally got it to boot! Total PITA! Now daylight is slowly slipping away! I figured maybe an hour of flying but was looking more like 45 minutes.
Call up clearance. Tell them I want to do a few trips around the pattern. He responds with "what altitude?" Um pattern altitude. Finally get the clearance and now for the two mile taxi to the other side of the airport as I am watching the sun slowly go down. Finally after holding for about three or four planes landing N110TD finally gets its second journey into the air and my first journey in 110TD! Wahhooooo! Only 5 years and 30 days of waiting! Acceleration was pretty good as I was a little nervous. It climbed out nicely and faster than Alex D's did but I didn't have as much weight either. Handling was almost identical though except for a slightly heavy left wing. I shouldn't have had those two hamburgers beforehand! On the first trip I had the extended downwind with the circle and every other diversion there was. I encountered a couple of problems. The EFIS/ONE artificial horizon started to tumble! The EFIS/ONE and our airspeed indicator were showing two different speeds by 20 knots! Our pitot/static system was checked and was found to be error free. I used the EFIS/One airspeed on approach since it was the slower of the two. I used 10 degrees of flaps and the beast settled in nicely with a smooth landing and acceleration for the touch and go. This climb out was much more enjoyable because there wasn't the initial fear of the engine quitting. Tower told me to keep it tight so I had a quick second trip around the pattern that put a nice RV grin on my face! I let it roll out on landing instead of trying to make the first turn-off. I didn't enjoy my education of brake repair.
The engine ran perfect. Never a burp or hesitation. Engine temps stayed pretty cool. 45 minutes of fun!
Questions for BMA owners:
Has you Artificial horizon ever tumbled? And does it take a few times for it to boot up?
Call up clearance. Tell them I want to do a few trips around the pattern. He responds with "what altitude?" Um pattern altitude. Finally get the clearance and now for the two mile taxi to the other side of the airport as I am watching the sun slowly go down. Finally after holding for about three or four planes landing N110TD finally gets its second journey into the air and my first journey in 110TD! Wahhooooo! Only 5 years and 30 days of waiting! Acceleration was pretty good as I was a little nervous. It climbed out nicely and faster than Alex D's did but I didn't have as much weight either. Handling was almost identical though except for a slightly heavy left wing. I shouldn't have had those two hamburgers beforehand! On the first trip I had the extended downwind with the circle and every other diversion there was. I encountered a couple of problems. The EFIS/ONE artificial horizon started to tumble! The EFIS/ONE and our airspeed indicator were showing two different speeds by 20 knots! Our pitot/static system was checked and was found to be error free. I used the EFIS/One airspeed on approach since it was the slower of the two. I used 10 degrees of flaps and the beast settled in nicely with a smooth landing and acceleration for the touch and go. This climb out was much more enjoyable because there wasn't the initial fear of the engine quitting. Tower told me to keep it tight so I had a quick second trip around the pattern that put a nice RV grin on my face! I let it roll out on landing instead of trying to make the first turn-off. I didn't enjoy my education of brake repair.
The engine ran perfect. Never a burp or hesitation. Engine temps stayed pretty cool. 45 minutes of fun!
Questions for BMA owners:
Has you Artificial horizon ever tumbled? And does it take a few times for it to boot up?
Last edited:
flion
Well Known Member
Todd, get in touch with Greg at BMA. My One boots up no problem, though it reboots on engine start because it's wired to the main buss. And I've never had the horizon 'tumble'. Maybe you should check your magnetometer connections? Anyway, I've found that BMA is quick with the answers if you email them or call them.
Thanks Patrick. I just have not had time to call them and wondered if somebody had a solution before I called them. I think it might be in our wiring.
Thanks. We got the brakes bled out with a little help from Rob just after you left. Did you take your first victim up yet?
Call me at 897-9093. My phone died and I lost your number. Can you give me a ride tomorrow?
You need a before you leave the house checklist!
Thanks for the ride again!
Good should be back running in two weeks. Would have been next weekend but my son came back into town for the weekend. We are putting Chunky Monkey on a diet and we are stripping off the supercharger and rewiring some electrical items that we felt were did not have any or enough redundancy. The supercharger coming off should take about 33-34 lbs off the nose which will allow us to take 33-34 lbs out of the baggage area when we are flying solo. As to fixes we have to adjust the operator not the engine.
I have been reluctant because some people have been using the information for the wrong reasons.
We have a some detonation issues due to running the engine at too high of a manifold pressure for given RPMS. From what I can gather it is called overboosting which is generally a problem with turbo charged engines. I have had several LS series engine experts look at it and they do believe that is what caused it. The engine should have never been run above a manifold pressure of 23 with a corresponding prop speed of 2700. It was run full throttle at prop speed of 2700 which is a engine rpm of 4,000. But at 4,000 rpms the throttle should not be any higher than 23. Anything over 23 starts to overboost and causes serious problems. Doing this for a few seconds isn't too harmful doing for over a minute can do some serious damage. It is like putting your car in fourth gear, putting against a tree and putting the pedal to floor. Luckily most cars have knock sensors and will retard the timing but our system does not have that. The engine never died and continued to produce power. Six of the piston heads have some form of damage to them. The engine is rock solid when it comes to running with damage. It flew beautifully when I flew it and will have it running smoothly again very shortly.
We have a some detonation issues due to running the engine at too high of a manifold pressure for given RPMS. From what I can gather it is called overboosting which is generally a problem with turbo charged engines. I have had several LS series engine experts look at it and they do believe that is what caused it. The engine should have never been run above a manifold pressure of 23 with a corresponding prop speed of 2700. It was run full throttle at prop speed of 2700 which is a engine rpm of 4,000. But at 4,000 rpms the throttle should not be any higher than 23. Anything over 23 starts to overboost and causes serious problems. Doing this for a few seconds isn't too harmful doing for over a minute can do some serious damage. It is like putting your car in fourth gear, putting against a tree and putting the pedal to floor. Luckily most cars have knock sensors and will retard the timing but our system does not have that. The engine never died and continued to produce power. Six of the piston heads have some form of damage to them. The engine is rock solid when it comes to running with damage. It flew beautifully when I flew it and will have it running smoothly again very shortly.
osxuser
Well Known Member
I guess that justifies taking the charger off it. Is there a way to modify the prop ratio to allow higher (takeoff) power settings at least? I'd think you'd want to be able to pull at least the 29" for takeoff even if you are NA.
What would your estimated power be minus the charger at 23" and 2700 prop rpm?
What would your estimated power be minus the charger at 23" and 2700 prop rpm?
pierre smith
Well Known Member
I'm missing something here.......
....Todd. We pull 29" or more on every take-off. Why is it limited to 23"...shucks, that's below our usual cruise number. You'll be able to pull close to 30" even with an Atmo engine.
Kindly enlighten,
....Todd. We pull 29" or more on every take-off. Why is it limited to 23"...shucks, that's below our usual cruise number. You'll be able to pull close to 30" even with an Atmo engine.
Kindly enlighten,
John Clark
Well Known Member
Manifold Pressure
I'm with Pierre, the numbers are somehow off. There must be an instrumentation issue here. The normal idle manifold pressure on a Chevy V8 is 18-22 in. at sea level.
John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
I'm with Pierre, the numbers are somehow off. There must be an instrumentation issue here. The normal idle manifold pressure on a Chevy V8 is 18-22 in. at sea level.
John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Ross -we did not have the colder plugs in when the trouble started. I had colder plugs in during the all my ground testing though. They are going back in.
Stephen and Pierre -normal flying logic is why I am putting new pistons in. There was more of a worry about overspeeding it than anything. This was the wrong thinking. YThe engine an handle well over 6,000 rpmsThis is a car engine in an airplane. Why can't you run at 29"? 29" is 6000 rpms on this engine. With a 1.72 gear box that means that prop is at almost 3500 rpms. 23 inches is 2700 rpms and is 305hp. To go to 29" and get full power you would have to change the gear box. But I think 305hp is more than enough power. So you don't take off at full throttle, you take off at 23" and 2700 on the prop. As you climb you can continue to push the throttle in but you do not want to go above 23". You can in theory maintain 305 hp all the way up 6000 or 7000 ft DA. Generally accepted airplane engine management goes out the window here unless you want to put new pistons in all the time. Overspeeding this engine is much better than overboosting it.
Stephen and Pierre -normal flying logic is why I am putting new pistons in. There was more of a worry about overspeeding it than anything. This was the wrong thinking. YThe engine an handle well over 6,000 rpmsThis is a car engine in an airplane. Why can't you run at 29"? 29" is 6000 rpms on this engine. With a 1.72 gear box that means that prop is at almost 3500 rpms. 23 inches is 2700 rpms and is 305hp. To go to 29" and get full power you would have to change the gear box. But I think 305hp is more than enough power. So you don't take off at full throttle, you take off at 23" and 2700 on the prop. As you climb you can continue to push the throttle in but you do not want to go above 23". You can in theory maintain 305 hp all the way up 6000 or 7000 ft DA. Generally accepted airplane engine management goes out the window here unless you want to put new pistons in all the time. Overspeeding this engine is much better than overboosting it.
Jconard
Well Known Member
So, why can't you change the pitch of the prop to allow full throttle at 2700 prop RPM...I always thought that vesta made CS props.
Maybe Ross can chime in, but I would think this engine could run WOT at 4,000 rpm all day long, based on what I have heard about the testing at GM (from Ross).
Is it a programming issue...timing/fuel/ etc?
Maybe Ross can chime in, but I would think this engine could run WOT at 4,000 rpm all day long, based on what I have heard about the testing at GM (from Ross).
Is it a programming issue...timing/fuel/ etc?
The stock CR on an LS2 is 10.9 to 1.
There are a few possible issues:
The inlet air temperature (IAT) with a supercharger or turbocharger, even not producing boost will be higher than ambient. This increases the chance of pre-ignition and detonation. Detonation will give a soft, progressive failure, pre-ignition will usually result in a sudden, serious piston crown failure and missing ground electrodes.
Using pump fuel on a forced induction engine with this compression ratio is not a great idea. Hopefully vendors are not supporting this idea.
There is considerable time spent mapping the OEM EMS with regards to total timing vs. MAP and IAT. Also in the case of the cast piston LSX engines, fuel mapping at WOT and higher rpm changes with time spent WOT to preserve the piston crowns. GM takes the AFRs into the 10s after about 30 seconds to reduce the EGTs and crown temps. Pulling timing out at high power settings is a double edged sword. While detonation may no longer occur, EGT generally soars. Given enough time, piston crown temps creep up until the upper rings lands distort, followed by more serious things.
Many V8 aviation projects have had common problems with very short piston life. This can often be traced to a lack of understanding on what should be done as far as internal mods go and more so to appropriate spark and fuel tuning.
Cast pistons have very real thermal loading limitations. They generally don't belong in forced induction engines unless fitted with under piston oil jets. Forged pistons will take about twice the thermal abuse before failure.
Stock heat range plugs should never be used in forced induction aircraft applications.
High CRs and pump fuel are a dangerous combination.
Consideration to pulling back spark timing as rpms climb close to torque peak rpm should be given to reduce peak cylinder pressure and increase knock margins.
100LL will give considerable latitude in leaning mixtures and keeping spark timing advanced compared to Mogas. Overall, 100LL will give more power with lower fuel burn and lower EGTs compared with Mogas. This is especially true on high CR engines. Lead may have longer term detrimental effects however as I have discovered.
I hope it is back together soon Todd. I'd check total timing with a gun at high rpm to be sure it is what the ECU says it is. Margins are narrow with this engine.
The piston to wall clearance on the LSX crate engines has had some relatively wide variations recorded and the tight tolerance published is inadequate IMO for this sort of application. There have been numerous other failures recorded in racing. Open up this clearance to the maximum allowed.
In conclusion, there is nothing dangerous with even 30 inches and any rpm on this engine with proper spark timing and AFRs, also given proper fuel octane and plug heat range. One or more of these parameters was not up to snuff for this type of failure to occur so quickly.
There are a few possible issues:
The inlet air temperature (IAT) with a supercharger or turbocharger, even not producing boost will be higher than ambient. This increases the chance of pre-ignition and detonation. Detonation will give a soft, progressive failure, pre-ignition will usually result in a sudden, serious piston crown failure and missing ground electrodes.
Using pump fuel on a forced induction engine with this compression ratio is not a great idea. Hopefully vendors are not supporting this idea.
There is considerable time spent mapping the OEM EMS with regards to total timing vs. MAP and IAT. Also in the case of the cast piston LSX engines, fuel mapping at WOT and higher rpm changes with time spent WOT to preserve the piston crowns. GM takes the AFRs into the 10s after about 30 seconds to reduce the EGTs and crown temps. Pulling timing out at high power settings is a double edged sword. While detonation may no longer occur, EGT generally soars. Given enough time, piston crown temps creep up until the upper rings lands distort, followed by more serious things.
Many V8 aviation projects have had common problems with very short piston life. This can often be traced to a lack of understanding on what should be done as far as internal mods go and more so to appropriate spark and fuel tuning.
Cast pistons have very real thermal loading limitations. They generally don't belong in forced induction engines unless fitted with under piston oil jets. Forged pistons will take about twice the thermal abuse before failure.
Stock heat range plugs should never be used in forced induction aircraft applications.
High CRs and pump fuel are a dangerous combination.
Consideration to pulling back spark timing as rpms climb close to torque peak rpm should be given to reduce peak cylinder pressure and increase knock margins.
100LL will give considerable latitude in leaning mixtures and keeping spark timing advanced compared to Mogas. Overall, 100LL will give more power with lower fuel burn and lower EGTs compared with Mogas. This is especially true on high CR engines. Lead may have longer term detrimental effects however as I have discovered.
I hope it is back together soon Todd. I'd check total timing with a gun at high rpm to be sure it is what the ECU says it is. Margins are narrow with this engine.
The piston to wall clearance on the LSX crate engines has had some relatively wide variations recorded and the tight tolerance published is inadequate IMO for this sort of application. There have been numerous other failures recorded in racing. Open up this clearance to the maximum allowed.
In conclusion, there is nothing dangerous with even 30 inches and any rpm on this engine with proper spark timing and AFRs, also given proper fuel octane and plug heat range. One or more of these parameters was not up to snuff for this type of failure to occur so quickly.
Last edited:
I'm just a wee bit confused here (and truly not trying to be sarcastic) but RPM and MP aren't a direct link (ie mutually exclusive) in any installation of any engine with any gearing when a CS prop is being used....MP can/should vary depending on the load applied at the prop, so I too am scratching my head here just a little bit. Perhaps Ross can put this in easy terms for me. With a CS prop, RPM should be controlled by the load on the prop, not MP - no matter whether it's an auto engine or subiewankendiesel or lyco or what. With a FP prop, then yes, MP will affect RPM.
Is your prop not twisting up enough? Regardless of gearing and regardless of what you need to take off, you should be able to push at least standard atmospheric pressure through it like any other auto installation or any installation for that matter....the gearbox isn't necessarily the controlling factor if indeed the prop is CS. If the prop is FP, then I can understand a bit more of what you're saying. If the prop is either FP or acting that way, then it's not the gearbox you change, it's the prop pitch.
Anyway, I'm not trying to open a debate, nor trying to be negative. Just trying to understand what you're saying here because it just doesn't make sense to me at this point. Perhaps it will with some further explanation.
Keep plugging away. I'm truly interested in your progress and just trying to understand things in your installation as I know several other people going the V8 route would like to know as well.
Ross, you've been through a lot of this and know an awful lot about this, can you educate me here a bit?
Cheers,
Stein
An auto engine is no different from any other engine when it comes to MAP. With the large throttle body fitted to the LS2 engines, anything near WOT will give you around 30 inches at sea level, regardless of engine rpm.
With these engines in the the RV10 airframe, we don't want to unleash the full 400+ hp available so we can de-rate the output either through MAP and/or rpm limitations- something like a flat rated turboprop. These engines have such high power density compared with a Lycoming or Continental that flat rating is a real possibility. For longevity and best efficiency, we generally would limit rpm to reduce piston speed and inertial loads on the valvetrain and reciprocating parts. WOT gives the lowest pumping losses as well.
As most people know, hp is a composite of MAP and rpm. We could make say 300 hp at 5000 rpm and 26 inches or 4500 and 30 inches or 6000 and 23 inches. The engine will last longer and get better SFCs at 4500/30 however.
What we have to watch on low octane fuel with such high CRs is detonation, especially near torque peak rpm where cylinder pressure is highest. Spark timing is critical here and we must maintain a safe temperature on the firing end of the plug as well, aviation applications being of long duration where plug temps can keep creeping up.
Without really good data to develop spark and fuel curves on this engine, we must sneak up on settings from the sick rich/ conservative end and work slowly towards improving fuel specifics as we go. This means cold plugs, lots of fuel and not too much spark timing around torque peak. Starting from the other end, usually results in a pretty quick failure unfortunately.
Limiting MAP to say 23 inches by limiting throttle would be one way to reduce the likelihood of engine damage during initial tuning but at some point, you want to be able to pull 30 inches and WOT and simply limit power by adding prop pitch. I think this is how many people fly their Subarus- WOT and just change prop rpm to establish the hp you want.
We all want these V8s to succeed and hope Todd gets it back together soon and the bugs works out. Nobody said this would be easy! Failures are hard to swallow but always valuable in the learning process IMO. Lots of stuff doesn't work right the first time in this type of experimentation. Ask me how I know.
There are a couple 10s with Bud Warren conversions getting close now too and Bud has a good handle on what is required to keep these engines running for a long time as shown on his Wheeler.
Over 20,000 views of this thread. I'd say there is a lot of interest in this topic!
With these engines in the the RV10 airframe, we don't want to unleash the full 400+ hp available so we can de-rate the output either through MAP and/or rpm limitations- something like a flat rated turboprop. These engines have such high power density compared with a Lycoming or Continental that flat rating is a real possibility. For longevity and best efficiency, we generally would limit rpm to reduce piston speed and inertial loads on the valvetrain and reciprocating parts. WOT gives the lowest pumping losses as well.
As most people know, hp is a composite of MAP and rpm. We could make say 300 hp at 5000 rpm and 26 inches or 4500 and 30 inches or 6000 and 23 inches. The engine will last longer and get better SFCs at 4500/30 however.
What we have to watch on low octane fuel with such high CRs is detonation, especially near torque peak rpm where cylinder pressure is highest. Spark timing is critical here and we must maintain a safe temperature on the firing end of the plug as well, aviation applications being of long duration where plug temps can keep creeping up.
Without really good data to develop spark and fuel curves on this engine, we must sneak up on settings from the sick rich/ conservative end and work slowly towards improving fuel specifics as we go. This means cold plugs, lots of fuel and not too much spark timing around torque peak. Starting from the other end, usually results in a pretty quick failure unfortunately.
Limiting MAP to say 23 inches by limiting throttle would be one way to reduce the likelihood of engine damage during initial tuning but at some point, you want to be able to pull 30 inches and WOT and simply limit power by adding prop pitch. I think this is how many people fly their Subarus- WOT and just change prop rpm to establish the hp you want.
We all want these V8s to succeed and hope Todd gets it back together soon and the bugs works out. Nobody said this would be easy! Failures are hard to swallow but always valuable in the learning process IMO. Lots of stuff doesn't work right the first time in this type of experimentation. Ask me how I know.
There are a couple 10s with Bud Warren conversions getting close now too and Bud has a good handle on what is required to keep these engines running for a long time as shown on his Wheeler.
Over 20,000 views of this thread. I'd say there is a lot of interest in this topic!
Last edited:
Well I just got off the phone with Tracy Crooks discussing how to program his unit to be able to go wide open throttle which I am very reluctant to do(not program just using that much power). WOT is just way too much power at sea level. Apparently his computer controls the timing differently below 23" and above 23". I have done all my timing setups at or below 23" . And as others have stated it should be able to run at WOT at sea level. Until I get the engine running again I will not be able to tell if our engine was too far advanced for the higher MPs. I never ran the higher MP because of I didn't want to yank my tiedown bolts out or it would just drag the plane with full brakes. Once I get it back together I will tie the plane down using the gear and get the timing correct on the upper MPs(I will probably have to make sure there is nothing within a 100 yards of the rear of the plane). I will also make sure the local engine experts are there with their finely tuned ears to listen for anything going wrong.
Bud does have a great deal of experience running his engines and I have given nothing but praises for his work but comments like the above though not malicious hide a side that has used my problems to discredit Jason Day and his work with Vesta. I want to share as much information as possible so people using the LS2 engine down the line can learn from my mistakes and that we as a group can make the chevy engines safer and better than anything out there. After seeing what happened to this engine and its ability to keep on running and producing significant power is truly amazing. I feel 100% secure in flying in a plane with that solid of an engine.
VESTA V8
I find this all very interesting. Todd has experienced the same problems as me, as he is aware. I have damaged my Vesta LS2 twice [Valves and pistons].The engine package was sold to me with seemingly no testing or matching of components. Tracy Crook saved my bacon. I was the first person to give him feedback and we now have my LS2 running smoothly on a test rig after a lot of work. I have 20 hrs on the engine much of which was at WOT, 2 stages colder plugs NGK TR7IX and use avgas or premium unleaded 96 oct. It is a beautifull engine when treated with respect and very well built.
I have just tested the original Vesta prop. against a new MT prop. for static thrust at 4500 rpm and WOT. Vesta 296 kg versus MT 360 kg. I am told that you only get 50% of power into a propeller statically, very different when airborn.
I am purchasing a Geared Drive gearbox. I like the Vesta HI Vo design but have found several problems.
PS; I am building an EXPRESS [ With RV 10 wheel spats]. I believe the more knowledge out there, the safer we will all be.
I find this all very interesting. Todd has experienced the same problems as me, as he is aware. I have damaged my Vesta LS2 twice [Valves and pistons].The engine package was sold to me with seemingly no testing or matching of components. Tracy Crook saved my bacon. I was the first person to give him feedback and we now have my LS2 running smoothly on a test rig after a lot of work. I have 20 hrs on the engine much of which was at WOT, 2 stages colder plugs NGK TR7IX and use avgas or premium unleaded 96 oct. It is a beautifull engine when treated with respect and very well built.
I have just tested the original Vesta prop. against a new MT prop. for static thrust at 4500 rpm and WOT. Vesta 296 kg versus MT 360 kg. I am told that you only get 50% of power into a propeller statically, very different when airborn.
I am purchasing a Geared Drive gearbox. I like the Vesta HI Vo design but have found several problems.
PS; I am building an EXPRESS [ With RV 10 wheel spats]. I believe the more knowledge out there, the safer we will all be.
Thank you for your feedback here.
Understand I'm not attacking Jason here but this is why I asked the questions about fuel type earlier.
Is Jason selling this package on the premise that it will operate with supercharger on 91-92 octane pump fuel?
How have the packages been flight tested or even ground run to validate gearbox, engine, propeller cooling and EMS operation and longevity?
This is the problem that David and I have had. They have been ground tested by us. They have been flight tested by someone who has a Murphy Moose and of course me. This is where I believe Bud shines. He had over 400 hours in his Wheeler and if it was not for the fuel line I am sure he would have another 400 more by now.
Interested to know how much flight time the package has accumulated to date and if the Moose owner has experienced similar problems. I hope Jason was not recommending stock plugs on this application?
Top_prop
Well Known Member
Thanks for your work in this thread
TSwezey, RV6ejguy and a few others,
I'd just like to say thanks for your efforts to make this a very informative educational thread. Please continue your path of excellence (Don't let the negativity of a few vocal fokes shut this down). I really have enjoyed lingering over the past few months here!
Tom
TSwezey, RV6ejguy and a few others,
I'd just like to say thanks for your efforts to make this a very informative educational thread. Please continue your path of excellence (Don't let the negativity of a few vocal fokes shut this down). I really have enjoyed lingering over the past few months here!
Tom
LS2
My engine arrived with standard plugs and I was advised 92 oct was OK. After my problems I went to colder plugs and was advised by Vesta that it was not necessary. I went to avgas as well. To increase my saftey margin. I also installed 180 deg F thermosat [available from JEGS] ,engine does not go above 185 deg F under any conditions. Standard engine runs at 205 deg F for pollution control.
Some one mentioned idle manifold pressure. This engine idles at 8.6 inches if it is well tuned. This caused some programing problems initially as the computer was not programed below 10 inches. Tracy changed the low end program and the problem was solved. I fly an IO540 EXPRESS and have been watching the manifold pressure, it idles at 14 inches but will go below 10 inches in fine pitch and a steep decent. I always believed a good engine must be a good sucker on idle.
I believe these engines should only be run with a constant speed propeller as it maintains a constant engine load no matter the attitude of the aircraft.
My engine arrived with standard plugs and I was advised 92 oct was OK. After my problems I went to colder plugs and was advised by Vesta that it was not necessary. I went to avgas as well. To increase my saftey margin. I also installed 180 deg F thermosat [available from JEGS] ,engine does not go above 185 deg F under any conditions. Standard engine runs at 205 deg F for pollution control.
Some one mentioned idle manifold pressure. This engine idles at 8.6 inches if it is well tuned. This caused some programing problems initially as the computer was not programed below 10 inches. Tracy changed the low end program and the problem was solved. I fly an IO540 EXPRESS and have been watching the manifold pressure, it idles at 14 inches but will go below 10 inches in fine pitch and a steep decent. I always believed a good engine must be a good sucker on idle.
I believe these engines should only be run with a constant speed propeller as it maintains a constant engine load no matter the attitude of the aircraft.
