X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m19.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.11] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with ESMTP id 3440957 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:37:51 -0500 Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-m19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.cfe.4a6825c6 (34917) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:37:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-ma01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.140]) by cia-da03.mx.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA032-5c48497a389e1b7; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:37:47 -0500 Received: from WEBMAIL-DC06 (webmail-dc06.webmail.aol.com [205.188.149.28]) by smtprly-ma01.mx.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMA016-5c48497a389e1b7; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:37:34 -0500 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Heavy Fuel? Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:37:34 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 66.253.96.220 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: wrjjrs@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CB4BB9F00FAD9C_1018_30A_WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 41095-STANDARD Received: from 66.253.96.220 by WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com (205.188.149.28) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:37:34 -0500 Message-Id: <8CB4BB9F00AE8EC-1018-179@WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO ----------MB_8CB4BB9F00FAD9C_1018_30A_WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Tracy, That is the problem, cost. The idea of a heavy-fuel engine often comes up, but it rarely makes sense except in Europe where the cost of gas is higher than Jet-A by enough to make it viable. Then it would only work if you got the same or better mileage. Bill Jepson -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Crook To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:07 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Heavy Fuel? I liked the Experimenter ezine but the article on heavy fuel was a bit lame.? Yes, you can (with some difficulty) make a spark ignited heavy fuel engine but so what?? What does it get you??? The efficiency is no better, and the power is less.? The fuel is more expensive. The military is interested in this for the purpose of fuel commonality only.?? Tracy? (sorry to be a downer) On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Dale Rogers wrote: Hi all, ?I just read a somewhat interesting article in the new EAA electronic magazine, < http://eaa.org/experimenter/issues/ >. http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-01_engine.asp ?IIRC, the rotary has a bit of a reputation for being able to run on darned near anything that will burn (100 proof?). ?With direct injection - just after the intake ports are obscured - a realistic possibility, I wonder if the 13B couldn't be a star platform for a heavy fuel solution. ?Hmm, I've got an extra engine, and if I can ever get the "fly" engine on the airplane ... nah, just another distraction to keep me from finishing the COZY. ?After that? Dale R. COZY MkIV #0497 Ch. 12 complete. ?~still~ on Ch. 13 ?:( -- Homepage: ?http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: ? http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ----------MB_8CB4BB9F00FAD9C_1018_30A_WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Tracy,
That is the problem, cost. The idea of a heavy-fuel engine often comes up, but it rarely makes sense except in Europe where the cost of gas is higher than Jet-A by enough to make it viable. Then it would only work if you got the same or better mileage.
Bill Jepson


-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:07 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Heavy Fuel?

I liked the Experimenter ezine but the article on heavy fuel was a bit lame.  Yes, you can (with some difficulty) make a spark ignited heavy fuel engine but so what?  What does it get you?   The efficiency is no better, and the power is less.  The fuel is more expensive.

The military is interested in this for the purpose of fuel commonality only.  

Tracy  (sorry to be a downer)


On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net> wrote:
Hi all,

 I just read a somewhat interesting article in the new EAA
electronic magazine, < http://eaa.org/experimenter/issues/ >.

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-01_engine.asp

 IIRC, the rotary has a bit of a reputation for being able to
run on darned near anything that will burn (100 proof?).

 With direct injection - just after the intake ports are
obscured - a realistic possibility, I wonder if the 13B
couldn't be a star platform for a heavy fuel solution.

 Hmm, I've got an extra engine, and if I can ever get the
"fly" engine on the airplane ... nah, just another distraction
to keep me from finishing the COZY.  After that?

Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
Ch. 12 complete.  ~still~ on Ch. 13  :(



--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

----------MB_8CB4BB9F00FAD9C_1018_30A_WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com--