Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.4) with ESMTP id 452705 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:32:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.69; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20041005003216.QMHV1791.imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:32:16 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: MAP pulses (20B) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:32:16 -0500 Message-ID: <00bd01c4aa72$c3f7ff20$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C4AA48.DB21F720" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C4AA48.DB21F720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One of the things I concluded fooling around with the MAP filtering was = that it seemed to need about 3 cu. in. of volume (line plus filter, or = whatever) to act as an effective "spring". Have you estimated how much volume you have? =20 I never tried to figure out the volume of the tubing, partly because I = can't actually remember how it connects behind the firewall. I have two lines running back. Originally, one went from one port on the TWM to the A controller and fuel pressure regulator. The second went from the other = port on the TWM to the B controller. When I found that my B controller = wouldn't idle worth a crap, I connected both lines together near the TB. That = made a world of difference in the B controller, but didn't change A as far as I could tell. I concluded that the fuel pressure regulator offers some = pulse dampening. =20 I was pretty depressed with the lack of success from my original = testing, but one of these days, I'm going to get back to it. It's just not close = to the top of my to-do list at the moment. In thinking back on my = original tests with the needle valve, I can only conclude that I have a small = leak in one of my lines to the EC-2 or regulator. Varying the needle valve had almost no effect on the idle, until I closed it completely, then the = engine would start to sputter and die. If the hoses were perfectly sealed, and = you closed the valve without varying the throttle, you should have a = perfectly stable MAP for that condition. I think my next attempt will be with a transducer inline, and a scope monitoring it. =20 =20 On second thought, keep up the good work, so I won't have to do any of = this :-)=20 =20 Rusty =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C4AA48.DB21F720 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
One of the = things I=20 concluded fooling around with the MAP filtering was that it seemed to = need about=20 3 cu. in. of volume (line plus filter, or whatever) to act as an = effective=20 “spring”.  Have you estimated how much volume you = have?
 
I never tried to figure out the volume of the tubing, = partly=20 because I can't actually remember how it connects behind the = firewall.  I=20 have two lines running back.  Originally, one went from one port on = the TWM=20 to the A controller and fuel pressure regulator.  The second = went from=20 the other port on the TWM to the B controller.   When I = found=20 that my B controller wouldn't idle worth a crap, I connected both = lines=20 together near the TB.  That made a world of difference in = the B=20 controller, but didn't change A as far as I could tell.  I = concluded=20 that the fuel pressure regulator offers some pulse=20 dampening.
 
I was pretty depressed with the lack of success from my = original=20 testing, but one of these days, I'm going to get back to it.  It's = just not=20 close to the top of my to-do list at the moment.   In thinking = back on=20 my original tests with the needle valve, I can only conclude that I have = a small=20 leak in one of my lines to the EC-2 or regulator.  Varying the = needle valve=20 had almost no effect on the idle, until I closed it completely, then the = engine=20 would start to sputter and die.  If the hoses were perfectly = sealed, and=20 you closed the valve without varying the throttle, you should have a = perfectly=20 stable MAP for that condition.  I think my next attempt will be = with a=20 transducer inline, and a scope monitoring = it.  
 
On second thought, keep up the good work, so I won't = have to do=20 any of this :-) 
 
Rusty
 
------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C4AA48.DB21F720--