Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: flyrotary Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:06:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cpimssmtpu08.email.msn.com ([207.46.181.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0) with ESMTP id 1848972 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:31:39 -0500 Received: from bhickman ([65.137.51.1]) by cpimssmtpu08.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:30:15 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <002301c2807d$4b40cb00$284ffea9@suwanneevalley.net> Reply-To: "Tracy Crook" From: "Tracy Crook" X-Original-To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: interesting discussion on intake temp andfuel delivery. X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:31:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Original-Return-Path: lors01@msn.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Oct 2002 01:30:15.0708 (UTC) FILETIME=[109235C0:01C2807D] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sower" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:44 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: interesting discussion on intake temp andfuel delivery. > <... 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. 37" would be a safe level to use. The B controller is primarily used for backup only. The temp sensor on "B" is not used to eliminate another possible source of failure. If you find yourself in need of a backup and the mixture on B is not optimum due to high or low air temps, simply adjust the mixture control knob to suit the current conditions. Tracy