X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:19:04 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman@cablespeed.com> Received: from mxo4.broadbandsupport.net ([209.55.3.84] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2302101 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:50:08 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.55.3.84; envelope-from=2thman@cablespeed.com X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman@cablespeed.com> Received: from [66.235.30.33] ([66.235.30.33:33750] helo=Home) by mxo4.broadbandsupport.net (ecelerity 2.1.1.23 r(18304)) with ESMTP id AD/65-13566-8D9B7D64 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:48:57 -0400 From: "John Barrett" <2thman@cablespeed.com> X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Cc: "'Fred Moreno'" Subject: FW: Engine efficiency X-Original-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:48:56 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <017201c7eb9b$00f5b770$02e12650$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0173_01C7EB60.5496DF70" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acfq/dBDC3xAKk94TJ+9XLyB7m2gfgAdCCGAAApB7IA= Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0173_01C7EB60.5496DF70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 From: Fred Moreno [mailto:fredmoreno@optusnet.com.au]=20 Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:58 PM To: John Barrett Subject: FW: Engine efficiency =20 Hi John:=20 =20 Please forward the note below to LML as it is rejecting my emails again after a brief run of acceptance.=20 =20 Cheers,=20 =20 Fred ___________________________________________________________________ =20 =20 =93The Continental engine manual doesn't seem relevant with the high = compression. On the other hand, I did get data from APS/GAMI on operation LOP. For = 10:1 compression the HP =3D 16.6 x FF(gph). That is a significant jump from = the 14.9 factor for the stock 8.5:1 compression.=94 =20 I have difficulty believing 16.6 hr hour per gallon. Assuming 5.85 = pounds per gallon (a GAMI figure)I calculate that this is equivalent to a = specific fuel consumption of 0.352 pounds per horsepower hour which is into = diesel territory. =20 =20 I plotted some SFC data published by manufacturers including liquid = cooled IOL-200 used on Voyager which had a compression ratio of 11.4. It = suggested that the correct figure for a compression ratio of 10 is closer to 15 hp hr/gallon. The figure of 14.9 sounds too high for 8.5:1 compression = as well. I would expect it to be about 6% lower efficiency based on charts = of efficiency vs compression ratio, or about 14.1 HP hr/gallon at 8.5:1. =20 As usual, carefully collected data collected with calibrated instruments should tell the tale.=20 =20 Fred Moreno =20 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.12/979 - Release Date: = 8/29/2007 8:21 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.=20 Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.12/979 - Release Date: = 8/29/2007 8:21 PM =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0173_01C7EB60.5496DF70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From:= Fred = Moreno [mailto:fredmoreno@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:58 PM
To: John Barrett
Subject: FW: Engine efficiency

Hi John:

Please forward the note below to LML as it is rejecting my = emails again after a brief run of acceptance.

Cheers,

Fred

____________________________________________________________= _______

“The

Continental engine = manual doesn't seem relevant with the high compression.

On the other hand, I = did get data from APS/GAMI on operation LOP. For 10:1

compression the HP =3D = 16.6 x FF(gph). That is a significant jump from the

14.9 factor for the stock 8.5:1 compression.”

I have difficulty believing 16.6 hr hour per gallon. Assuming 5.85 = pounds per gallon (a GAMI figure)I calculate that this is equivalent to a = specific fuel consumption of 0.352 pounds per horsepower hour which is into = diesel territory.

I plotted some SFC data published by manufacturers including liquid cooled IOL-200 used on Voyager which had a compression ratio of 11.4. It suggested that the correct figure for a compression ratio of 10 is = closer to 15 hp hr/gallon. The figure of 14.9 sounds too high for = 8.5:1 compression as well. I would expect it to be about 6% lower = efficiency based on charts of efficiency vs compression ratio, or about 14.1 HP = hr/gallon at 8.5:1.

As usual, carefully collected data collected with calibrated instruments = should tell the tale.

Fred Moreno

No virus found in this incoming = message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.12/979 - Release Date: = 8/29/2007 8:21 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.12/979 - Release Date: = 8/29/2007 8:21 PM

------=_NextPart_000_0173_01C7EB60.5496DF70--