Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #16813
From: jesse farr <jesse@jessfarr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:47:30 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
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" <canarder@frontiernet.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
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' <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=30648/*http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/jibjabinaugural.html>



 Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
 Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html


Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster