Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <D2F2379D403546EE80F4AB4EED5D1619@EdPC>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-4987321@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4987321@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Tuning
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:35:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal

Nope don't mind at all , nice comparison, Jeff.

However, Brian and I use different reference - Brian is using the EM2  128 = 
0 and rich is + from that point and lean is - from that point.  So where 
mine reads 128 that is equivalent of Brian's reading = 0.  If Brian reads 44 
then my MAP value would be 128 + 44 = 172.  If Brain reads -30 then mine 
would read 128 - 30 = 98.  Just so we have apples and apples {:>)

I might explain that one reason I have the two bumps at lower manifold 
pressures (both in the idle and >3500 rpm maps) is that early on (before I 
understood the value of Mode 3 and 6 for making adjustments and before Steve 
Boses excellent research and analysis on the staging problem), I solved my 
bog at staging by gradually increasing the mixture (making it richer) around 
the bins of the staging point.  I found that helped, so I continued 
increasing those bin values until the bog went away.

Now (if I weren't so lazy), I would go back and adjust the flow using Mode 6 
and could probably eliminate those bumps, but it works fine as is so I don't 
(being lazy after all).

Ed

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Whaley" <jwhaley@datacast.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:17 AM
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Tuning

> Hello Brian:
> Don't know what happened to that last post; it was a jumbled mess. I don't 
> subscribe to the feed so I have to cut and paste.
> Anyway the first attachment was obviously your MAP and the second 
> attachment includes Ed's MAP in light blue (hope you don't mind Ed) and 
> mine is the one in purple for comparison ... hope these graphs are useful.
> Jeff
>
> From: bktrub@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Your Fuel Map: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Tuning
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 00:02:01 -0400
> To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
>
> Ok, that is interesting. I forgot to mention that I am running 28 lb 
> primaries and 40 lb secondaries. Looks like I will be doing some more 
> setting of the tables and experimentation.
>
> I do have an O2 sensor and monitor, so I'll be looking at that also.
>
> Brian Trubee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Sent: Tue, May 17, 2011 8:28 pm
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Your Fuel Map: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Tuning
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I have my fuel MAP values and comments (in blue) buried in your spread 
> sheet.  IF I had to make a stab at this point and quick look, I would say 
> you are probably running excessively rich at your higher map values > bin 
> pointer 75 < bin pointer 103.  See my notes.  I took my MAP values (turbo 
> block street ported - good intake - no turbo) and converted them to your 
> reference - that column is in blue is my value for direct comparison with 
> yours.  Some places we different but it probably doesn't really matter - 
> in other areas where we differ, you are running considerably richer than 
> my engine.
>
> I have the 2.84:1 gear box swinging a 74x88 prop and consistently get 6000 
> rpm static on a normal day and can get up to 6200 on a colder day.  My 
> fuel flow will range from 16.5-18 GPH on take off and has hit 20 GPH on a 
> cold day. I use a 91 Turbo block street ported sans turbocharger.  I have 
> a fairly decent intake system (about the sixth version - so I did quite a 
> bit of experimentation to get it right and I think it's a pretty descent 
> intake)
>
> Do you have an air/fuel ratio indicator?  If so I suggest you run your 
> engine at some of those bin numbers and record what it is telling you 
> (lean, Medium Rich, etc).  While at higher Manifold pressure you do want 
> an air/fuel ratio running closer to 12.5:1, I suspect your air/fuel ratio 
> may be even richer than that.  Now all of these comments apply to 
> bin/manifold pressures in the non-boosted range < bin 103 or so.
>
> Take a look at my notes - it is possible your problem could be too rich. 
> Too much fuel in your mufflers getting ignited can certainly produce a 
> loud bang.  Perhaps ignition could also cause it, but right now it appears 
> to me you are simply way too rich between bins 75-103.  If you have an 
> air/fuel ratio indicator, I would try reducing the mixture in those areas.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
> signature database 6131 (20110518) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> This message, and the documents attached hereto, is intended only for the 
> addressee and may contain privileged or confidential information. Any 
> unauthorized disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> message in error, please notify us immediately so that we may correct our 
> internal records. Please then delete the original message. Thank you.
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>