X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.4) with ESMTP id 1718449 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:16:32 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([71.99.167.95]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JAX006YAX769LKU@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:16:22 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:18:22 -0500 From: Finn Lassen Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Single Rotor Operation was Re: Dead Rotor at 3000ft In-reply-to: To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-id: <45929CCE.50205@verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) Not sure if an afterburner would be good for a pusher prop... Finn Ed Anderson wrote: > > I found that if I cranked up the mixture to maximum rich, which at > that point gave me 14.5 GPH burn rate, that I could keep the rpm above > 4000 rpm. Naturally all that fuel going through the bad rotor was not > producing any meaningful power and I might have been leaving a > "afterburner" flame (don't know),but the engine rpm stayed around > 4200-4400 rpm. Besides, I was fully loaded with fuel, so did not mind > get rid of some of that stuff prior to landing. >