X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from QMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2723954 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:13:37 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.40; envelope-from=gregw@onestopdesign.biz Received: from OMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.11]) by QMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id o2cX1Y0050EPchoA404f00; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:12:44 +0000 Received: from gregoryii ([24.6.40.29]) by OMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id o3Cx1Y00B0dkeQQ8M00000; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:12:57 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=jp5PAqqC2hfKXmnjQLcA:9 a=3elV-eOyWZtevnvRIoQA:7 a=W_dDSdvqgu3Lk0B6g15POnbagDIA:4 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=WN8zLioqDSwA:10 a=g6F8_2ymL05YlbdWN40A:9 a=xRmbRCbtuIVCAfT0MqIA:7 a=k4JVmTYWrh0dU79hzv8po4hfQ9oA:4 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=WD2S8eiFAUIA:10 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 Message-ID: <01a601c86c5c$404e6650$8801a8c0@yosemite.onestopdesign.biz> From: "Greg Ward" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel burn Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:14:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C86C19.31D7AF20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C86C19.31D7AF20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yeah, I would be interested in this one too, as I am looking at prop = options too. Greg (Lancair, on the ground, in the new shop, mating with a 20B as of this = weekend....(:-) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Charlie England=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 4:06 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel burn Hi Mark, Isn't 7000/2.85=3D2456.14 ?? Is the M/T optimized (diameter, pitch, twist) for turning only = 2150rpm? Charlie Mark Steitle wrote:=20 Al,=20 Yes, I'm running one of Tracy's 2.85:1.00 boxes. Mark =20 On Feb 10, 2008 12:20 PM, Al Gietzen wrote: Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel burn Thanks, good data Al. I'm sure that some of the differences we're = seeing are due to altitude. So far, I've stayed fairly low = (3000-5000'). I may try some higher altitude flight soon just to see = how it changes my performance numbers. Another difference is that I = have a M/T electric constant speed prop. I normally set it to 2150rpm = for takeoff. This allows the engine to turn around 7000 rpm, which will = account some for the higher fuel burn I'm seeing. My airport is at 520' = msl, so there's a 1000' difference there from your 1500' msl airport. = Yes, she really accelerates down the runway. I'm usually airborne in = about 900-1000'. =20 Mark I'm not sure I see how these correlate "set it to 2150rpm for = takeoff. This allows the engine to turn around 7000 rpm,"; but the big = difference is that you're putting out more horses than I am. At 7000 = you're likely looking at about 300 hp, so 25-26 gph would be expected. = Are you running a 2.85 ratio redrive; or something else? Al -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C86C19.31D7AF20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yeah, I would be interested in this one too, as = I am=20 looking at prop options too.

Greg

(Lancair, on the ground, in the new shop, mating = with a=20 20B as of this weekend....(:-)

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Charlie=20 England
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft

Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 = 4:06=20 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel = burn

Hi Mark,

Isn't 7000/2.85=3D2456.14 ??

Is = the M/T=20 optimized (diameter, pitch, twist) for turning only=20 2150rpm?

Charlie

Mark Steitle wrote:=20
Al, =

Yes, I'm=20 running one of Tracy's 2.85:1.00 boxes.

Mark

On Feb 10, 2008 12:20 PM, Al Gietzen <ALVentures@cox.net> wrote:

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel burn

Thanks, good data Al. I'm sure that some = of the=20 differences we're seeing are due to altitude. So far, I've = stayed=20 fairly low (3000-5000'). I may try some higher altitude = flight soon=20 just to see how it changes my performance numbers. Another=20 difference is that I have a M/T electric constant speed = prop. I=20 normally set it to 2150rpm for takeoff. This allows the = engine to=20 turn around 7000 rpm, which will account some for the higher fuel = burn I'm=20 seeing. My airport is at 520' msl, so there's a 1000' = difference=20 there from your 1500' msl airport. Yes, she really = accelerates down=20 the runway. I'm usually airborne in about = 900-1000'. =20

Mark

I'm = not sure I=20 see how these correlate "set it to 2150rpm for=20 takeoff. This allows the engine to turn around 7000 = rpm,";=20 but the big = difference is that=20 you're putting out more horses than I am. At 7000 you're = likely=20 looking at about 300 hp, so 25-26 gph would be expected. Are = you=20 running a 2.85 ratio redrive; or something=20 else?

Al

-- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C86C19.31D7AF20--