Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net
Message-ID: <4D7A76C1.1020707@att.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:23:45 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net>
Reply-To: echristley@att.net
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Crankcase ventilation
References: <list-4903266@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4903266@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Steven W. Boese wrote:
> Ernest,
>=20
> =20
>=20
> I chose to keep the oil injection system.  That system has a clean air =

> line from the atmospheric side of the throttle body to the injection=20
> ports.  With prolonged operation at or near WOT, injection oil would=20
> work its way back up that line to the throttle body inlet.  A check=20
> valve was needed to prevent this from happening.  At or near WOT it=20
> appears that although the average pressure at the oil injection port ma=
y=20
> be slightly less than atmospheric, the dynamic nature of that pressure =

> may prevent that port location from being very effective at scavenging.=
 =20
> For what it is worth, that=92s what happened with my installation.=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
That's good info, Steve.  Putting that together with what Al said, I thin=
k I'm just going to plug the ports and vent=20
through a collector.