Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.133.193; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au
Message-ID: <007301c6de9f$7dc42250$9eb0683a@george>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1415053@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel Pressure Regulator Vacuum or Boost??
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:33:20 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> I agree, Ernest, having flown over 325 hours with essentially no
> manifold-referenced pressure regulator, it is certainly not critical to 
> have a manifold referenced one for the EC2.
>
> However, a number of folks sorting out their initial engine start up have 
> found mediocre or poor low rpm idle - and  if they are using a "boost" 
> referenced regulator and assuming (as I did) that it also adjusts for 
> "vacuum" levels in the manifold, this may contribute to the problem.  You 
> can compensate for this (to some extent) by adjusting the MAP values 
> through programming - but, not completely.
>
> In my case, I just don't like taxing by all the Lycoming guys with an 
> engine that sounds like it is not in perfect tune.
>
>
> ED

Ed,
There's a lot of truth to that Ed - it's one thing to argue the benefits of 
auto engines, however it not that easy to hold one's head high - as if in 
achievement, if it's idling like S.it.
George (down under)