Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.67; envelope-from=pmrobert@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <41A154BF.7070600@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:53:51 -0500
From: Mike Robert <pmrobert@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: MMO vs 2-cycle    (was  Re: how do you carry,
 and measure oil?)
References: <list-541261@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-541261@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:

> I (and many other much smarter people than I) think that
> 1:128 is an excellent ratio for high power settings but anything less
> than high power settings will scavenge the premixed oil into the sump.
>
>  
> Thanks for the info Mike.   Interesting.  I hadn't considered that the 
> lower power setting would cause the worst scavenging.


> Mazda uses very "lean" oil:gas ratios in the case of the stock 
> automobile at less than wide open throttle and especially at cruise 
> and idle. Apparently, providing oil at the high power ratio when not 
> at high power provides too much oil. My vehicle's fuel is premixed for 
> max power operation as the worst case scenario. Most of the time, I'm 
> sure, there is quite a bit more oil than needed fogging out of those 
> injectors.

> If that's the case, a car should be much worse than a plane.  Now if 
> we can get someone with a mechanical omp to tie it fully open, and use 
> one of Richard's adapters, we can find out if the oil injection keeps 
> the sump from filling with top oil.  
>  
> Rusty (next-flight-out shipping for 4 body coils: thousands of 
> dollars, actually getting one that works: priceless) 
>  
>
>
>
>