Re-hi Roger,
I did more researches. But you seem to be a Rotax expert so I would need your feedback too...
My questions were in regards to the engine performance, not the propeller or the airframe, though the poor KIAS at high altitude I was getting is what started me to search for an explanation. As a reminder, I was getting 29.1 inches MAP at 10,000 ft (DA) and 24.9 inches at 14,000 ft (DA).
Basically my turbo engine seems to perform well only around sea-level! It seems to boost by about 10 inches from the ambient air pressure (so I can get 39 in at SL and 25 in at 14,000).
I talked to a Tecnam dealer (who sold a few 914 LSA) and he confirmed what I suspected.
That is, the manifold pressure is expected to stay around 36 inches all the way and beyond 12,000 ft. That also seems to corroborate the statements in all Rotax manuals, that is the engine is supposed to deliver max continuous power till 16,000 ft, which is confirmed by their performance tables and by the statement in the maintenance manual (76-00-00/2.1.2.3): The critical flying altitude for max. continuous power is reached at 4500 m (14,800 ft, 17 in). Because of the low density at this altitude, the actual boost pressure is only approx. 1140 hPa (33.7 in), although the wastegate is completely closed. This means the turbo boosts by 33.7-17=16.7 under those conditions, right? That statement (in Rotax manual) calls out 14,800 ft while earlier statements (like 16,000 ft) or table don't seem to exactly agree but they all concur to confirm that 33 to 36 in should be available all the way to at least 14,000 ft.
So it seems absolutely clear that something is wrong with my engine/turbo configuration, right? I am getting 25 inches instead of 33+ inches at 14,000 ft and proportionally higher MAP at lower altitudes (such as 29.1 inches at 10,000 ft) but still way off spec. Again, that is at Wide Open Throttle (the one at 115% you are supposed to stay only 5 minutes on).
All my sensors are OK because (and they may be a few % off, it does not matter) they all agree at sea level and are all coherent at elevation. For example, 24.9 in is reported at 14,000 ft but because the RPM is so low (when, in contrary, my fixed-pitch prop should be overspeeding) and the KIAS is so low (the GPH in my screen shots, another indication of engine performance, was wrong as not being calibrated but I flew an hour at 14,000 ft and calculated my fuel consumption differently by the gauges and a refill upon arrival and my consumption was very low at 4.8 GPH, a clear indication the engine was working very very lazily, certainly not 100% power, not even close).
Further, during my test at 10,000 ft (DA) (I did not think of doing t at 14,000 ft), I switched the TCU servo off and it did not affect anything at all. Initially I thought the TCU might have opened the waste gate for some reasons (like high airbox temperature) but it is clear it never did that.
So it is clear the turbo in this brand new airplane/new engine is not performing correctly, perhaps never did even when leaving the factory.
My only explanation is that the servo cable is too tight. Since the TCU servo commands opening the waste gate then when the servo is off (I suppose also when the TCU unit is off) the waste gate should be completely closed. Then the TCU can command to open the gate from 0 to 100% depending on conditions. The manual also says: with the wastegate completely open, the engine performance can reach up to approx. 70 kW/94 HP since not all
of the exhaust gases bypass the turbine. I suppose at sea level only though.
If the servo cable is too tight that means the waste gate is always opened a little bit (likely very easy to fix). If the cable was too loose then the TCU would have a hard time reducing boost and I would see the opposite issue (perhaps more than 40 inches at sea level). Another explanation (likely way more costly in term of warranty) could be a leak or a defect somewhere preventing the turbo to ever boost by more than 10 inches.
Would you concur?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Jeff