Wasp update
05-21-2006 | 07:17 AM
#77
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
ORIGINAL: Gaspar
..Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
..Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
05-21-2006 | 11:56 AM
#78
RE: Wasp update
ORIGINAL: TREADSTONE
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
ORIGINAL: Gaspar
..Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
..Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
quoted from page 1 of this thread
'2: Starter motor bendix shaft has a fault and fails to disengage from the compressor........which would cause:
starter motor goes over speed and acts like a generator overloading ECU, preload overload and rear bearing skids causing rear bearing failure and the starter goes too fast and fries it's bearings. '
05-21-2006 | 01:20 PM
#79
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
.. But i thought you said you stood " Corrected "
ORIGINAL: paulj1969
yes, that makes a lot of sense Gaspar, i think you do have a very good point there and i stand `corrected.
ORIGINAL: Gaspar
Hello Paul,
Some friends have mailed me pointing to this thread.
Please STOP your tries in to accuse the Ecu of the problems of the engine.
Don't try to confuse the readers pointing to something outside the engine. It is clear that something failed, I have my own theory from the reports from first hand witness, but I leave to PH this. About your theory:
1. If ecu fails to disengage the starter: Ecus aren't God, they only can cut the supply to the starter. The only weird thing that the ecu can do is not stop the starter, very unlikely as the ecu short circuit the starter to brake it, but anyway, once the rotor rpm is higher than the starter RPM (say 30.000RPM for a Speed300 motor) the bendix disengages itself automatically. It is a mechanical thing, when the torque goes inverse, the bendix retracts, nothing to do with the ecu.
If the bendix keep stuck (mechanical problem, it is a part of the engine, not from ecu) the only think that happen is that the torque of the engine at low RPM (say 30.000) can't drive the starter motor with its terminals shortcircuited from the ecu. Again, the torque is high and inverse, the bendix should disengage, if not, the RPM fall and some fire exit from the exhaust. No way to arrive to idle.
Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
Why the starter and ecu are fried? Simple. As soon as the engine begin to fail (yes, the engine failed first) (say blades lost, say bearing, say the pilot doing a loop at +40g, say whatever you want) the shaft begin to run eccentric. As the compressor nut sit inside the bendix with a small clearance, this eccentricity made that the compressor nut contacted to the bendix, driving the starter at full RPM. The ecu keept the starter shortcircuited, but the instant power was too high for it and fried both, ecu and starter. This was just after the bearing fail, and during the time that the engine run until stop. Also, any tries to cooldown the engine trough the ecu withn the starter fried could have damaged the ecu too.
Later,
Gaspar
Hello Paul,
Some friends have mailed me pointing to this thread.
Please STOP your tries in to accuse the Ecu of the problems of the engine.
Don't try to confuse the readers pointing to something outside the engine. It is clear that something failed, I have my own theory from the reports from first hand witness, but I leave to PH this. About your theory:
1. If ecu fails to disengage the starter: Ecus aren't God, they only can cut the supply to the starter. The only weird thing that the ecu can do is not stop the starter, very unlikely as the ecu short circuit the starter to brake it, but anyway, once the rotor rpm is higher than the starter RPM (say 30.000RPM for a Speed300 motor) the bendix disengages itself automatically. It is a mechanical thing, when the torque goes inverse, the bendix retracts, nothing to do with the ecu.
If the bendix keep stuck (mechanical problem, it is a part of the engine, not from ecu) the only think that happen is that the torque of the engine at low RPM (say 30.000) can't drive the starter motor with its terminals shortcircuited from the ecu. Again, the torque is high and inverse, the bendix should disengage, if not, the RPM fall and some fire exit from the exhaust. No way to arrive to idle.
Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
Why the starter and ecu are fried? Simple. As soon as the engine begin to fail (yes, the engine failed first) (say blades lost, say bearing, say the pilot doing a loop at +40g, say whatever you want) the shaft begin to run eccentric. As the compressor nut sit inside the bendix with a small clearance, this eccentricity made that the compressor nut contacted to the bendix, driving the starter at full RPM. The ecu keept the starter shortcircuited, but the instant power was too high for it and fried both, ecu and starter. This was just after the bearing fail, and during the time that the engine run until stop. Also, any tries to cooldown the engine trough the ecu withn the starter fried could have damaged the ecu too.
Later,
Gaspar
05-22-2006 | 08:07 AM
#80
RE: Wasp update
ORIGINAL: TREADSTONE
.. But i thought you said you stood " Corrected "
.. But i thought you said you stood " Corrected "
ORIGINAL: paulj1969
yes, that makes a lot of sense Gaspar, i think you do have a very good point there and i stand `corrected.
ORIGINAL: Gaspar
Hello Paul,
Some friends have mailed me pointing to this thread.
Please STOP your tries in to accuse the Ecu of the problems of the engine.
Don't try to confuse the readers pointing to something outside the engine. It is clear that something failed, I have my own theory from the reports from first hand witness, but I leave to PH this. About your theory:
1. If ecu fails to disengage the starter: Ecus aren't God, they only can cut the supply to the starter. The only weird thing that the ecu can do is not stop the starter, very unlikely as the ecu short circuit the starter to brake it, but anyway, once the rotor rpm is higher than the starter RPM (say 30.000RPM for a Speed300 motor) the bendix disengages itself automatically. It is a mechanical thing, when the torque goes inverse, the bendix retracts, nothing to do with the ecu.
If the bendix keep stuck (mechanical problem, it is a part of the engine, not from ecu) the only think that happen is that the torque of the engine at low RPM (say 30.000) can't drive the starter motor with its terminals shortcircuited from the ecu. Again, the torque is high and inverse, the bendix should disengage, if not, the RPM fall and some fire exit from the exhaust. No way to arrive to idle.
Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
Why the starter and ecu are fried? Simple. As soon as the engine begin to fail (yes, the engine failed first) (say blades lost, say bearing, say the pilot doing a loop at +40g, say whatever you want) the shaft begin to run eccentric. As the compressor nut sit inside the bendix with a small clearance, this eccentricity made that the compressor nut contacted to the bendix, driving the starter at full RPM. The ecu keept the starter shortcircuited, but the instant power was too high for it and fried both, ecu and starter. This was just after the bearing fail, and during the time that the engine run until stop. Also, any tries to cooldown the engine trough the ecu withn the starter fried could have damaged the ecu too.
Later,
Gaspar
Hello Paul,
Some friends have mailed me pointing to this thread.
Please STOP your tries in to accuse the Ecu of the problems of the engine.
Don't try to confuse the readers pointing to something outside the engine. It is clear that something failed, I have my own theory from the reports from first hand witness, but I leave to PH this. About your theory:
1. If ecu fails to disengage the starter: Ecus aren't God, they only can cut the supply to the starter. The only weird thing that the ecu can do is not stop the starter, very unlikely as the ecu short circuit the starter to brake it, but anyway, once the rotor rpm is higher than the starter RPM (say 30.000RPM for a Speed300 motor) the bendix disengages itself automatically. It is a mechanical thing, when the torque goes inverse, the bendix retracts, nothing to do with the ecu.
If the bendix keep stuck (mechanical problem, it is a part of the engine, not from ecu) the only think that happen is that the torque of the engine at low RPM (say 30.000) can't drive the starter motor with its terminals shortcircuited from the ecu. Again, the torque is high and inverse, the bendix should disengage, if not, the RPM fall and some fire exit from the exhaust. No way to arrive to idle.
Supposing that the engine can arrive to idle with the starter engaged....that is a lot of supposition... Let me know what starter you use that can survive 4 minutes at 150Krpm. And the ecu should have survived 4 minutes at 50V of back EMF... that's reliability! Not many appliances allow a voltage 7 times higher than nominal...
And the suposition that a starter shaft (a fault outside the engine, again [&o] ) with his tiny 2mm of diameter can upset the preload and damage the bearings is ridiculous, sorry. No way that it can hold full 4 minutes and do enough force to upset the preload... and this force should be against the engine, just inversely as the sense of the bendix...
Why the starter and ecu are fried? Simple. As soon as the engine begin to fail (yes, the engine failed first) (say blades lost, say bearing, say the pilot doing a loop at +40g, say whatever you want) the shaft begin to run eccentric. As the compressor nut sit inside the bendix with a small clearance, this eccentricity made that the compressor nut contacted to the bendix, driving the starter at full RPM. The ecu keept the starter shortcircuited, but the instant power was too high for it and fried both, ecu and starter. This was just after the bearing fail, and during the time that the engine run until stop. Also, any tries to cooldown the engine trough the ecu withn the starter fried could have damaged the ecu too.
Later,
Gaspar
05-22-2006 | 08:31 AM
#81
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Redditch, , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
I just don't swollow this bendix rubish I've had one stay engaged and it went to idle what a din there is no way it would have made it upto full bore without die hard jetter noticing no way no way no way ohh yea no way. It would slow the spool up cause flames realy bad in balance noise AND NO ONE NOTICED MMMMMMMM I'll leave this now as no matter what comes back - trying to run an engine upto full with the bendix engaged only AMATEURS would do and the people doing the review are far from that - I smell *&LL S*^T END OFF.
All the best
Ant
All the best
Ant
05-22-2006 | 08:39 AM
#82
RE: Wasp update
ORIGINAL: Ant-Rutter
I just don't swollow this bendix rubish I've had one stay engaged and it went to idle what a din there is no way it would have made it upto full bore without die hard jetter noticing no way no way no way ohh yea no way. It would slow the spool up cause flames realy bad in balance noise AND NO ONE NOTICED MMMMMMMM I'll leave this now as no matter what comes back - trying to run an engine upto full with the bendix engaged only AMATEURS would do and the people doing the review are far from that - I smell *&LL S*^T END OFF.
All the best
Ant
I just don't swollow this bendix rubish I've had one stay engaged and it went to idle what a din there is no way it would have made it upto full bore without die hard jetter noticing no way no way no way ohh yea no way. It would slow the spool up cause flames realy bad in balance noise AND NO ONE NOTICED MMMMMMMM I'll leave this now as no matter what comes back - trying to run an engine upto full with the bendix engaged only AMATEURS would do and the people doing the review are far from that - I smell *&LL S*^T END OFF.
All the best
Ant
05-22-2006 | 08:52 AM
#83
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Redditch, , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
[quote]ORIGINAL: TREADSTONE
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
[]
Read the above statement because in my experience the motor only engages to START the engine now if the bendix in this case did disengage then the engine was running fine then they took off and the bendix did move onto the compressor nut it would simply scim/bounce off like a stone scimming across a pond. With the difference in speed it would not purchase together unless its a realy crappy design bendix which in honesty I don't think phil would do that do you??. So from this I can only assume that it never disengaged from starting but I will have to read the article before I comment more.
Ant
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
[]
Read the above statement because in my experience the motor only engages to START the engine now if the bendix in this case did disengage then the engine was running fine then they took off and the bendix did move onto the compressor nut it would simply scim/bounce off like a stone scimming across a pond. With the difference in speed it would not purchase together unless its a realy crappy design bendix which in honesty I don't think phil would do that do you??. So from this I can only assume that it never disengaged from starting but I will have to read the article before I comment more.
Ant
05-22-2006 | 08:54 AM
#84
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Redditch, , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
ORIGINAL: TREADSTONE
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
Ant
05-22-2006 | 08:55 AM
#85
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Newport PagnellBUCKS, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
Ant-Rutter
I have just got back from holiday and have read the full report in this month's RCJI. If you have not got your copy yet, I suggest you get it. The report to me seams very full and thorough.
In all fairness, I have to say that your views on it being released prematurely are well supported. I am sure we both trust Tom Wilkinson to speak as he finds.
I have just got back from holiday and have read the full report in this month's RCJI. If you have not got your copy yet, I suggest you get it. The report to me seams very full and thorough.
In all fairness, I have to say that your views on it being released prematurely are well supported. I am sure we both trust Tom Wilkinson to speak as he finds.
05-22-2006 | 08:58 AM
#86
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Redditch, , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
Tom in my experience is VERY FAIR and a Jolly nice chap and once I read it I'm sure I will still think this I best run off and get a copy.
Ant
Ant
05-22-2006 | 10:29 AM
#87
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
ORIGINAL: TREADSTONE
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
..It says that when the engine was started the motor failed to disengage...which placed undue thrust on the main shaft....which defeated the pre-load on the main bearing..
The sentence above encompasses what the report in RCJI says... Not my Views or theories.
05-22-2006 | 11:06 AM
#88
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Southport, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
Just to clarify matters I think the destinction should be made between starter motor disengagement (momentary reverse voltage applied to starter motor from Fadec) and mechanical bendix disengagement (which should happen the instant this voltage is applied).
The jist of the problem seems to be that despite the application of reverse voltage the bendix failed to disengage.
The manufacturers have since modified the starter clutch with 2 engagement slots to apply a more axial force to the sliding sleeve to reduce the tendency for the clutch to stick.
Rob.
The jist of the problem seems to be that despite the application of reverse voltage the bendix failed to disengage.
The manufacturers have since modified the starter clutch with 2 engagement slots to apply a more axial force to the sliding sleeve to reduce the tendency for the clutch to stick.
Rob.
05-22-2006 | 11:19 AM
#89
RE: Wasp update
Do most of the ECUs provide this momentary reverse voltage in auto start? (I am using manual start at the moment so didn't know that)
Wouldn't a simple diode in the circuit prevent the FADEC from being fried?
Wouldn't a simple diode in the circuit prevent the FADEC from being fried?
05-22-2006 | 12:12 PM
#90
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Southport, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
Hi Mark, I can't speak for any of the other ecu manufacturers, only Gaspar's Fadec. I was involved in dvelopment testing in the earliest days and had the dubious honour of performing the first Fadec autostart in the World outside of Spain.
Things as always have moved on and although a manual start Fadec does not use the reverse voltage to assist bendix disengagement a good starter motor/bendix combination will naturally want to disengage once power is switched off. This is particularly so with the stronger magnet e-motors having higher braking force...this causes the motor armature to slow down much more rapidly than the bendix clutch which naturally 'snaps' back to the parked position due to the high inertial differencials involved.
Some manufacturers have gone a step furher incorporating a large thin rear flange/disc as part of the bendix mechanism, this takes advantage of the motor magnetic field to apply further parking/holding force away from the compressor nut.
Bet you did'nt realise so much development has gone into just starting an engine
(and this is only a small part of it).
Rob.
Things as always have moved on and although a manual start Fadec does not use the reverse voltage to assist bendix disengagement a good starter motor/bendix combination will naturally want to disengage once power is switched off. This is particularly so with the stronger magnet e-motors having higher braking force...this causes the motor armature to slow down much more rapidly than the bendix clutch which naturally 'snaps' back to the parked position due to the high inertial differencials involved.
Some manufacturers have gone a step furher incorporating a large thin rear flange/disc as part of the bendix mechanism, this takes advantage of the motor magnetic field to apply further parking/holding force away from the compressor nut.
Bet you did'nt realise so much development has gone into just starting an engine
(and this is only a small part of it).Rob.
05-22-2006 | 01:35 PM
#91
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
ORIGINAL: Gaspar
.......if the bendix keep stuck (mechanical problem, it is a part of the engine, not from ecu) the only think that happen is that the torque of the engine at low RPM (say 30.000) can't drive the starter motor with its terminals shortcircuited from the ecu. Again, the torque is high and inverse, the bendix should disengage, if not, the RPM fall and some fire exit from the exhaust. No way to arrive to idle.
Gaspar
.......if the bendix keep stuck (mechanical problem, it is a part of the engine, not from ecu) the only think that happen is that the torque of the engine at low RPM (say 30.000) can't drive the starter motor with its terminals shortcircuited from the ecu. Again, the torque is high and inverse, the bendix should disengage, if not, the RPM fall and some fire exit from the exhaust. No way to arrive to idle.
Gaspar
]
ORIGINAL: Robrow
Bet you did'nt realise so much development has gone into just starting an engine (and this is only a small part of it).
Rob.
Bet you did'nt realise so much development has gone into just starting an engine
(and this is only a small part of it).Rob.
05-25-2006 | 03:34 AM
#92
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Redditch, , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
Hi all
Right I have now read the review on the wasp (Phils account is in italics) and although now with the knowledge that he was using a single slot bendix (most manufacturers scrapped this - will explain later) I suppose I could agree with the chain of events that lead to the engine failure of this engine except one point (it engaging from original startup) and after speaking to a VERY VERY experience turbine engineer who's rebuilt engines for a well know engine maufacturer and who' knowledge couldn't be questioned + my own long turbine experiences cannot believe they took off with the bendix fully or part engaged no way the operators (tom etc) are way too experienced . This bendix was scrapped because if it came forward onto the nut with the engine running instead of it boucing off like a two slot would 99 times out of a 100 it had a tendency to lock on as the forces twisted it as it was only supported on one side locked(this supports my under developed opinion) I'm sure the bendix re engaged in flight this is why they didn't notice a problem on the ground as to distroy an engine in this way wouldn't need 4 mins (the flight time) it could do it in seconds as don't forget the engine is under tremendous forces. Also the fact even the factory built engine didn't produce even the minimum thrust the kit engine was confirmed to be built correctly by phil himself only produced 16.5lb all this with an increase on k' rpm over the first spec this all show the basis of the engine is GOOD but it needs extensive testing and further development to meet its first claims BUT NOT AT THE EXPENCE OF JOE PUBLIC development costs should be footed at the expence of the seller if he wants the profit from the end result - A GOOD ENGINE which with time this will be.
That would be like me asking my customers to buy me a new printing machine with no reduction in prices to them and at the end the machines mine - they would tell me to get stuffed. So this is why we foot the bill so we profit (I'm a label printer by the way so if you want labels whey hey hey www.label-innovations.com needs updating desperately thats the trouble with leaving our network manager to do the website).
I started this thread not to be proved right or wrong I just don't care about that I just hoped to inform people so they can make an informed decision on buying a new design engine. I am very confident Phil will sort all this out in the end coz if he had of before the release I would have one and most likely be raving about it.
Ant
Right I have now read the review on the wasp (Phils account is in italics) and although now with the knowledge that he was using a single slot bendix (most manufacturers scrapped this - will explain later) I suppose I could agree with the chain of events that lead to the engine failure of this engine except one point (it engaging from original startup) and after speaking to a VERY VERY experience turbine engineer who's rebuilt engines for a well know engine maufacturer and who' knowledge couldn't be questioned + my own long turbine experiences cannot believe they took off with the bendix fully or part engaged no way the operators (tom etc) are way too experienced . This bendix was scrapped because if it came forward onto the nut with the engine running instead of it boucing off like a two slot would 99 times out of a 100 it had a tendency to lock on as the forces twisted it as it was only supported on one side locked(this supports my under developed opinion) I'm sure the bendix re engaged in flight this is why they didn't notice a problem on the ground as to distroy an engine in this way wouldn't need 4 mins (the flight time) it could do it in seconds as don't forget the engine is under tremendous forces. Also the fact even the factory built engine didn't produce even the minimum thrust the kit engine was confirmed to be built correctly by phil himself only produced 16.5lb all this with an increase on k' rpm over the first spec this all show the basis of the engine is GOOD but it needs extensive testing and further development to meet its first claims BUT NOT AT THE EXPENCE OF JOE PUBLIC development costs should be footed at the expence of the seller if he wants the profit from the end result - A GOOD ENGINE which with time this will be.
That would be like me asking my customers to buy me a new printing machine with no reduction in prices to them and at the end the machines mine - they would tell me to get stuffed. So this is why we foot the bill so we profit (I'm a label printer by the way so if you want labels whey hey hey www.label-innovations.com needs updating desperately thats the trouble with leaving our network manager to do the website).
I started this thread not to be proved right or wrong I just don't care about that I just hoped to inform people so they can make an informed decision on buying a new design engine. I am very confident Phil will sort all this out in the end coz if he had of before the release I would have one and most likely be raving about it.
Ant
05-25-2006 | 10:12 AM
#93
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
Just to make this Crystal clear for us all... The actual failure assessment report in RCJI is PHILL's report, NOT Tom Wilkinson or anyone from RCJI.
There are several points of interest yet..
First one ..is the drawing two issues ago in RCJI of the Wasp technically accurate..?
05-25-2006 | 11:19 AM
#94
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
From: glasgowScotland, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
I think it is really a shame that the Wasp was released to the market without being fully developed.I am sure a lot of people were interested, including me, at the power / weight / prices as advertised.
Unfortunately the bad initial publicity will do the reputation of this turbine no good at all. There are now many reliable turbines on the market at ever more reasonable prices and if he has not already done so I think Phil should withdraw the Wasp from the market until the product performs as originally advertised. Otherwise he risks being tarred with the same brush as Jetjoe.
John
Unfortunately the bad initial publicity will do the reputation of this turbine no good at all. There are now many reliable turbines on the market at ever more reasonable prices and if he has not already done so I think Phil should withdraw the Wasp from the market until the product performs as originally advertised. Otherwise he risks being tarred with the same brush as Jetjoe.
John
05-26-2006 | 05:29 AM
#95
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Redditch, , UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
ORIGINAL: TREADSTONE
Just to make this Crystal clear for us all... The actual failure assessment report in RCJI is PHILL's report, NOT Tom Wilkinson or anyone from RCJI.
Just to make this Crystal clear for us all... The actual failure assessment report in RCJI is PHILL's report, NOT Tom Wilkinson or anyone from RCJI.
All the best
Ant
05-27-2006 | 05:36 AM
#96
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: leedswest yorkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
we are at the moment sorting out a few demo planes to take to shows with wasps in and aim to get as many flights a day as possible. as i think you are right and the only way the wasp can be proven and people know its abilities is to see it first hand. I know phil works 24hrs a day to make sure the wasp is spot on and if people want to wait to order one they can but most people know the score and if they want to order one now thats up to them . Phill does offer a very good back up service and i am sure he will read with interest this thread and take note of some comments. although i thought that mister A Rutter was wrong to start this thread i am glad he has been reasonable with what he has said and he has made some good points that could benefit a lot of people
Joke MMMM maybe
06-29-2006 | 09:33 PM
#100
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Newport PagnellBUCKS, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: Wasp update
manjet
My experience is that you have to tune the ECU somewhat, but once that is achieved, it is generally a very good starter. Perhaps you could PM the details and your existing parameters on Excel? At first I had about 17 failures but once tuned it has started every time. I will check the ECU log but I must have had 42+ flights and 5hours+ run time. I have borrowed ECUs off other engines (which were being serviced) and each time I transferred, the ECU has had to relearn the engine in spite of being given the same parameters. I have now bought it its own 2nd hand ECU so hopefully, it will now settle down a bit. I reckon it is delivering about 18lbs thrust and consumes 260ml/min at full throttle.
My experience is that you have to tune the ECU somewhat, but once that is achieved, it is generally a very good starter. Perhaps you could PM the details and your existing parameters on Excel? At first I had about 17 failures but once tuned it has started every time. I will check the ECU log but I must have had 42+ flights and 5hours+ run time. I have borrowed ECUs off other engines (which were being serviced) and each time I transferred, the ECU has had to relearn the engine in spite of being given the same parameters. I have now bought it its own 2nd hand ECU so hopefully, it will now settle down a bit. I reckon it is delivering about 18lbs thrust and consumes 260ml/min at full throttle.
