<... I think it is a mistake to be pushing the envelope too far on boost ...>
Agreed.  My purpose for boost would be: a) the suppression that turbo charging
provides;  b) to have 35" - 37" available for takeoff;  c) to be able to
"normalize" at altitude and get my 30" at 10,000' or 15 000'.  That would buy
me a LOT of cruise TAS.
Fuel requirements are dependent on *mass* flow, and there's no accurate way
that I am aware of to compute mass flow without a temperature input.  RPM and
MAP will work acceptably on a standard day because you assume standard
temperature(s).  But mass flow calculations will become increasingly inaccurate
as inlet (to the manifold or combustion chamber) temperatures depart from
standard conditions.  One might argue that the errors are manageable most of
the time, but as soon as you start boosting, accuracy goes to hell in a hand
basket if you don't accurately compensate for your inlet temperature.

Did I understand Ed's post correctly when he said that Tracy's EC2 has air
temperature compensation on side A but *not* on side B?  I'm wondering why
would that be?  Seems it would make for vastly different programming of the
processors.

Feeling a little lost here .... Jim S.

Marvin Kaye wrote:

> Posted for "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>:
>
> I agree with Ed's assessment and if you put the air temp sensor after the
> turbo & intercooler, it should compensate for the temp changes when running
> conservative levels of boost (not over 15" Hg boost , 45" Hg MAP).
> Just my opinion, but I think it is a mistake to be pushing the envelope too
> far on boost in an aircraft installation until you get many other details
> sorted out.  If you are an expert on turbo installations in rotaries, feel
> free to ignore this advice.
>
> Tracy Crook
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/