X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3524603 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:50:38 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.44; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090303055002.TUYN13097.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:50:02 -0500 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.133.251]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id NVq11b00D5RcKeo04Vq1rH; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:50:01 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=RgAroyKy78wA:10 a=U1ZaYnf293oA:10 a=l5rI-OUcZgFOIxv1qOYA:9 a=TMd9sdkOjTlYnbrP-LWAYmrrwvwA:4 a=77UB_OrJ-6MA:10 a=KO-ikarapqnLvgu6xBMA:9 a=QdpbEVh3C2TRRWkQVXgA:7 a=JAwCzerpvnc6pYG5wqVFOjIKTdcA:4 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:51:09 -0800 Message-ID: <41FFE66B49534433A531124C917E8A28@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C99B80.FF2936A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Thread-Index: AcmbtkMqO6tCAA75S+u2VelPbHeeVQAC6jcg In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C99B80.FF2936A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I dont know where you got the idea that rotaries are more fuel = efficient. Lycosaurs/Continentals typically have BSFCs in the low .40s. The = commonly accepted number for a rotary is about .50. Some here seem to do better, others worse.=20 =20 Mike; =20 I'm not disagreeing with the points in your message; but I am wondering = if you know anybody actually flying a Lyc/Cont and achieving BSFC in the = low 40's. I see numbers like .43 or .45 bandied about, but I guess no one = leans enough when flying to get that for fear of burning out a valve - or = worse. I've yet to hear from anyone flying a Velocity like mine with a Lyc who = can surpass the speed/fuel burn that I get with the 20B. I don't know why - = it surprised me; but there it is. =20 I think in the real world operation the BSFCs are comparable. I may = have a bit lower drag because of smaller cowl; or other factors. =20 Al =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C99B80.FF2936A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=

I dont know where you = got the idea that rotaries are more fuel efficient. Lycosaurs/Continentals = typically have BSFCs in the low .40s. The commonly accepted number for a rotary is = about .50. Some here seem to do better, others worse.

Mike;

I’m not disagreeing with = the points in your message; but I am wondering if you know anybody actually = flying a Lyc/Cont and achieving BSFC in the low 40’s. I see numbers = like .43 or .45 bandied about, but I guess no one leans enough when flying to = get that for fear of burning out a valve – or worse. I’ve = yet to hear from anyone flying a Velocity= like mine with a Lyc who can surpass the speed/fuel burn = that I get with the 20B. I don’t know why – it surprised me; but = there it is.

I think in the real world = operation the BSFCs are comparable. I may have a bit lower drag because of smaller = cowl; or other factors.

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C99B80.FF2936A0--