X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Charlie England" Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.10) with ESMTPS id 7246550 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:57:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.43; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id eu11so6932293pac.16 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=sdTy0emQwHEH324y+9r3vbDZtYUJkLvnFLkLSl+PG5I=; b=WjyZ/CRLCdbwHPjXVD85BduVcd8lVLoUIgD+ys5pHtQuaArvIoQZ1j6cog2LKWHT3D mIbz8LjarO3Z68o8SaEBlFeOcviecWG1ik8YhXWyRum2NYvoONTasJTlDVLHn+9UfFKW vmdGR1gKhoVHtBJ/+dfgH8gz3OmSLLVfIvJsnl2t+bx9NTi++nvqkjdQZ0jsZDChmt+j iokJhF+4DvnHEPsLae+KRsECCKR8phxgiZ3oofqAICZI86uQQj6QJqt1MLXqvA2OspoJ HcnBY8LItH9rj7dU6ihG41ik4etTpxsxeHXaMopkibknF2JAiohHlC5rSW71phvwkn7r Op/w== X-Received: by 10.66.253.102 with SMTP id zz6mr21777158pac.25.1414731430061; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:25fb:99:2c77:6e5e:7516:6ddf? ([2602:306:25fb:99:2c77:6e5e:7516:6ddf]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zf5sm8602435pbc.44.2014.10.30.21.57.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54531725.9060901@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:59:17 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Fw: Rotary Engine & Fuel Valves References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070104050101070309030303" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070104050101070309030303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Rumor has it that running on one rotor (on a 2 rotor engine) can be very hazardous to the health of most things attached to the engine. You can treat it like a turbine; always feed the motor from the same tank, and use a transfer pump to move fuel from aux to main. But...Didn't you mention 6psi fuel pressure? If that's correct, then why have a return line at all? If it's a carb engine, just use Facet 'solid state' (interrupter style) pumps. No return line needed. Charlie On 10/30/2014 3:51 PM, Ernest Christley wrote: > I'm forwarding this to the list, since some might find it interesting. > > > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:02 AM, John Papson > wrote: > > > Ernest: > I sending this direct to you because while I enjoy reading the > FLYROTARY mail list , I’m not registered. > Why not completely eliminate the dual (supply and return) fuel valve ? > Assuming fuel injection: > Run one rotor off of one tank, with its own pump and return line, and > the other rotor off the second tank with its own pump and return. > Or in the case of a 4 cylinder engine, one pair opposed cylinders from > one tank and the other pair from the other. > If you lose one half, the engine would have to run wide open throttle > (WOT), and make a little less than half power. > With WOT, the pumping losses from the dead half of the engine will be > minimal, like the braking of a diesel or 2-stroke engine. > Enough power to at least “extend your glide”, and maybe enough to > maintain altitude in some cases. > regards > John C Papson > Director of Product Development > DigitalGrid Inc > 201 Moreland Rd > Hauppauge NY > 11788 > Phone: (631) 271-7092 ex 127 > FAX: (631) 271-7097 > Email: jpapson@digitalgridinc.com > P.S OK to copy to the FLYROTARY list if you deem this worthwhile. > > --------------070104050101070309030303 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Rumor has it that running on one rotor (on a 2 rotor engine) can be very hazardous to the health of most things attached to the engine.

You can treat it like a turbine; always feed the motor from the same tank, and use a transfer pump to move fuel from aux to main.

But...Didn't you mention 6psi fuel pressure? If that's correct, then why have a return line at all? If it's a carb engine, just use Facet 'solid state' (interrupter style) pumps. No return line needed.

Charlie


On 10/30/2014 3:51 PM, Ernest Christley wrote:
I'm forwarding this to the list, since some might find it interesting.


On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:02 AM, John Papson <jpapson@digitalgridinc.com> wrote:


Ernest:
 
I sending this direct to you because while I enjoy reading the FLYROTARY mail list , I’m not registered.
 
Why not completely eliminate the dual (supply and return) fuel valve ?
 
Assuming fuel injection:
 
Run one rotor off of one tank, with its own pump and return line, and the other rotor off the second tank with its own pump and return.
Or in the case of a 4 cylinder engine, one pair opposed cylinders from one tank and the other pair from the other.
 
If you lose one half, the engine would have to run wide open throttle (WOT), and make a little less than half power.
With WOT, the pumping losses from the dead half of the engine will be minimal, like the braking of a diesel or 2-stroke engine.
 
Enough power to at least “extend your glide”, and maybe enough to maintain altitude in some cases.
 
regards
 
John C Papson
Director of Product Development
DigitalGrid Inc
201 Moreland Rd
Hauppauge NY
11788
Phone: (631) 271-7092 ex 127
FAX: (631) 271-7097
Email: jpapson@digitalgridinc.com
 
P.S    OK to copy to the FLYROTARY list if you deem this worthwhile.



--------------070104050101070309030303--