Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.102; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <000e01c60130$d83ea540$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-882727@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Another run-up
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:34:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Load is one of the key factors in producing the exhaust flow necessary to 
get your turbine spinning.  High  load = High exhaust flow.  So seeing as 
how your rpm was limited to 4000+ with 50" manifold pressure, I would say 
your prop is putting way too much load on the engine.  For the rotary this 
is almost in the "Lugging" stage rpm wise.  For 50" I would like to see 
closer to 5500- 6000 rpm on the engine.  Remember that your coolant flow and 
oil flow are directly dependent on RPM, so if the prop is holding the engine 
down in rpm BUT producing the power and associated heat - be careful that 
your coolant and oil temps are closely monitored.  Just my 0.02 worth.

Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bulent Aliev" <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:11 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Another run-up


> Today I decided to fire up the engine again and see how far I can go  on 
> the static rpm. As you may remember I totally removed the  wastegate from 
> my stock turbo. This time I was able to rich 4000+ RPM  and 50" MP. 
> Further advancement of the throttle did reduce the RPM  slightly? Looks 
> like the prop was too much for the engine? I was  surprised to see such a 
> high MP with two rather big holes below the  turbine wide open.
> Any comments?
> Buly
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>