Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 722333 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:48:20 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.148.227.85; envelope-from=jesse@jessfarr.com Received: from office5 (pcp04959909pcs.midval01.tn.comcast.net[68.59.199.44]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2005020918473501400q0fgue>; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:47:35 +0000 Message-ID: <012501c50ed7$cf8a1de0$057ba8c0@farr.com> From: "jesse farr" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:47:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Yeah, but I miss my 4 old prop rpm, manifold pressure, fuel mixture and turbo normalizing boost verniers. I felt more like I was in control; err, maybe that is the point, though. jofarr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sower" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:00 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece > <... Isn't there a law of motor performance that says that two motors > putting out the same horsepower are consuming the same amount of air&fuel, > assuming efficiency differences were not significant ...> > Yes. But an assumption that efficiency differences are not significant > different is *fatally *flawed. The notion that two engines will consume > the same amount of air & fuel sort of implies perfection in the delivery > of air & fuel. The point of much of this discussion is that the Ellison > will deliver sufficient air with sufficient efficiency to a Lyc but will > *not* deliver enough air efficiently enough to a 13B to enable the engine > to make the power it should. A rotary would perform even worse if you > attached a Marvin Dribbler carburetor to it. > > EFI is the way to go ... even if electronics and computers spook us ... > Jim S. > > > Tom wrote: > >> I'm under the impression I have an answer. >> Isn't there a law of motor performance that says that two motors putting >> out the same horsepower are consuming the same amount of air&fuel, >> assuming efficiency differences were not significant? >> So if you had a 13b and a O-360 putting out the same horsepower for a >> single given 1 revolution of the propeller, they should be consuming the >> same amount of air and fuel during that 1 propeller revolution. (I THINK >> chosing 1 propeller rpm is a correct standard) >> Bill pointed out that the 13b operates at a higher rpm, and we know that >> there's more combustion charges consumed by the 13b to make that 1 prop >> rpm. The difference, the missing piece, each 13b combustion charge >> consumes a SMALLER amount of fuel/air than the piston powerplants less >> frequent combustion charge. ??? So the 13b burns a smaller amount >> more frequently. ??? >> If this is all true, then the Ellison isn't on the trash heap yet. >> Tom >> >> */WRJJRS@aol.com/* wrote: >> >> Group, >> I want to remind everyone about how much a priority the large >> volume inlets are to us. I believe Ed Anderson was mentioning in >> one of his posts how difficult it can be to get a MAP signal in >> the airbox of one of our PP engines. This is a perfect indication >> of why the smaller throttle bodies used on some of the slow >> turning engines will kill our HP. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' >> > > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >