X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2038149 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 May 2007 11:45:42 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2007 11:44:26 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,523,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="60008938:sNHT46853830" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4BFiQcv009219 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 11:44:26 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l4BFi963023346 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:44:26 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 May 2007 11:44:17 -0400 Received: from [64.102.38.213] ([64.102.38.213]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 May 2007 11:44:17 -0400 Message-ID: <46448F51.4060906@nc.rr.com> Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:44:17 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 question References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2007 15:44:17.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[3BD9FEB0:01C793E3] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=echristley@nc.rr.com; dkim=neutral Finn Lassen wrote: > I'm not Tracy but the way I understand it is you don't want this. > Why did Powersport get such poor fuel efficiency against the Lycoming > fly-offs in the RV-8's. > Because there was no option for leaning past max power setting. > > I guess you could have a max-power/best-fuel-efficiency switch, but > then again you don't have a single lever. And there would probably be > times when you want something in-between and you're back to the > variable mixture control. > Could we discuss single power lever controls for just a moment, because I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm eliminating leaded gasoline, and I'm willing to accept the inconveniences that will entail. A 50gal tank mixed with a roadable airplane makes that somewhat easier to accept. This makes a closed loop system with a wide-band oxygen sensor possible, ie the computer always knows the fuel-air ratio. As I see it, there are two regimes to consider. Max power and max efficiency. Max power occurs at a ratio of about 11 or 12, and max efficiency at a ratio of 16.5 to 17. We don't have to worry about burning exhaust valves so running a peak EGT is a non-issue (assuming the exhaust is designed to handle peak EGT). One less thing to worry over. The way I think the single lever should work is that the TPS should be located on the throttle lever (instead of on the throttle). The throttle plate should operate normally, except that the last 10 to 15% of travel is spring loaded. That is, the lever will have some motion left, but the throttle is max open. How this works. For the first 85% of throttle travel, operation would be exactly as normal. The computer senses throttle opening and operates the injectors to feed an appropriate amount of fuel to maintain the most efficient operation. It would be easy to tune to the most efficient point by searching for the lean surge at each TPS set point. If you're running at half throttle, is there ever a need to try to flood fuel to the engine for more power that couldn't be done by opening the throttle a little more? I seriously can't think of a reason to provide more fuel than needed for smooth operation when the throttle isn't fully open, but I'm willing to being disavowed of any misconceptions I have. Now, once the throttle hits the full open, the lever still moves, but is compressing a spring instead of moving a throttle plate. The computer sees the throttle position indicator still moving, and begins adding more fuel to enrich the mixture. 85 to 90% would move the mixture to 15, 90 to 95% gives you 14, 95 to 98 give you 13, and 98 to 100% gives whatever is the exact best power ratio. The last 15% of throttle movement would progressively enrich the mixture, and in effect becomes a mixture control, the computer interpolating between set points. A detent at the 85% switchover point will give the pilot positive indication that they've crossed over from enriched to max efficiency. In operation, the mixture is automatically enriched for start and warm-up. The pilot taxis at highly reduced power, always at max efficiency. The runnup won't require a cross into the heavy fuel regime, so he's still at max efficiency, power controlled by adding more air. He gets clearance, lines up and goes full throttle. The computer senses 100% throttle and pours fuel in to get that 12 ratio. Pilot clears the trees, and pull back to a cruise climb with the throttle at 90%. Happens to be a little shy of lean of peak, the throttle is full open, but the pilot doesn't care as he's getting the climb rate he wants. Pilot reaches altitude and rolls the throttle back to 75%. The throttle plate is cocked sideways a bit, and the computer is delivering just enough fuel to maintain the max efficiency. If more power is necessary, move the lever. When the engine can't give more power by opening up the throttle plate, it will start giving more power by adding fuel...to the point where it can't give any more power. The system would be exactly the same for ground vs altitude, or if you added a turbo or supercharger. Give max efficiency until the throttle is completely open, and then start working toward max power. Comments?