Jerry,

Despite the seeming evidence of cold side problems - its all relative.  On
one version of my intake I had all four injectors 24" away from the intake
port.  I had no problem flying with it or producing power with my NA turbo
block.  In fact, it seemed based on a smidgen of data that I might be
getting 1/2 gallon/hr better economy (not conclusively proven), however, the
downside I found were three  fold:

1.  The throttle response was not to my taste - it would bog, if the
throttle was opened too suddenly.  Some may feel that you shouldn't need to
ask for that kind of response from an aircraft engine - but, Scotty, when I
want more power - I WANT MORE POWER NOW!

2.  Starting on cold mornings were horrid, ran the battery down a couple of
times.  Now, my "Plugs Up" installation might have contributed to that
problem as the normal orientation any liquid fuel will run down into the
chamber where it might stand a chance of turning into vapor (or flooding the
engine), whereas my fuel would have to be lifted vertically.

3.  It did appear that I could not lean out the engine quite as much without
it starting to stumble, it seem to take approx 1/2 GPH fuel flow to keep
that from happening - might have been evidence of some distillation - but,
who knows, could have been something else like fuel wetting out on the
walls.   I know this seems in conflict with point #2, but that's what
occurred.

So I went back to all four injectors less than 3" from the ports. However,
there was no reason why I could not have continued to fly with that set up -
except for personal perferences.  That rotary will do well even on less than
optimum configuration.

Ed A


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Hey" <j-winddesigns@thegrid.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 11:32 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Pport/cold side injectors

Ernest, that your analysis is impressive. I've just reread it again.
I'm committed to trying with the cold side injectors  but if it does
not work,  I will understand why.  The upside is that if they don't
work we can lay the   idea to rest,  accept hot side fuel as the only
way  and work on making it safe through proper shielding.   This is one
of the "little" things us p porters have to work out.    Thanks,  Jerry




On Friday, January 21, 2005, at 11:04  AM, Ernest Christley wrote:

On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 10:23, Ed Anderson wrote:

Wow! Ok, Ernest

Certainly sounds plausible that long runners would contribute to the
separation of the wheat and chaff.  I wish I could remember what my
professors taught me in those long ago days. Perhaps if I had day
dreamed
less and studied harder......Nah!!!

I took only one other thing away from that class.

What has LEAD got to do with octane?  It's a metal.  It doesn't burn.
Why would anyone put it in their gas?

Well, it turns out, the light (less carbons per chain) molecules are
easier to atomize (convert to a semi-gaseous state by spraying through
a
small orifice).  If you want a nice compact carberator/intake system,
you need lots of those short chains.  The down side is, those short
chains don't have a lot of energy and tend to want to burn on there on
when exposed to the pressure inside a cylinder.  What you want is
something that will atomize like the short chain, but burn smoothly
like
the medium length ones.

Enter LEAD, stage right.

Lead has four bonding points.  Mix some with your gas, and each lead
atom will attach to one end of 4 different carbon chains.  Remember,
the
chain only burns when the end is exposed to oxygen?  Well, now one end
is locked down.  If the fuel started out as pure mixture of 4 carbon
chains, and you mixed just the right amount of lead, you'll end up with
a batch of molecules shaped like a plus sign (+).  Each arm of the plus
will be 4 chains long.  The oxygen can only get at the ends, so this
mixture will burn like 100 Octane (ie, 100% Octane).

And my last point.  Higher octane is not always better.  High octane is
good for turbo applications, because is has a slower burn rate.  But
you
want the burn to occur so that the maximum pressure is in the chamber
at
the highest torque point of the cylinder/rotor rotation.  Not before
and
not after.  If you're running exceedingly high RPM in a non-turbo
application, LOWER octane may actually produce more power.  In this
situation, the higher octane stuff may still be burning well into the
exhaust cylce.

Now, I'm done.  My brain is empty.

 Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
 Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

 Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
 Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

 Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
 Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html