Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.131.34; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <42099F38.8050209@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:27:20 -0600
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad day at the airport - Ellison
References: <list-720819@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-720819@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Looking at the way the fuel is supplied to the air, I could understand 
the need for HUGE velocity through the venturi to draw the fuel in.  
Then you can expand the runners for more sedate (read less skin 
friction) to the engine.
But now I've told you more than I know (again :o)  Jim S.

Russell Duffy wrote:

> apparently a small number of CozyMKIV flyers are using the Ellison on 
> their 360's,  (Nat, Steve Wright, David Dormier, Marc Zeitlin, and at 
> least one or two more).  My understanding is that even the motor on 
> Paul's bench wouldn't produce more (or much more) power than the 
> 360.   How can the 360's produce their power if that bore-size is an 
> issue?        
>  
> Hi Tom,
>  
> I can't say I understand it, but maybe Ken or someone will jump in and 
> bail me out.  I gave up on the idea of using an Ellison when I 
> realized that the EFS-4-5 (180-225 HP) model only has a 1-7/8" bore.  
> I've been worried that I was on the verge of choking my 13B with 
> "only" 1-5/8" bores for each rotor.  Now I suppose you could connect 
> the runners for both rotors together at a common plenum, and feed it 
> with a single1-7/8" bore since both rotors aren't requiring a huge 
> airflow at the same time.  That seems like it should work, and I'd 
> love to see someone try it.  Just hard to step back from true fuel 
> injection.  
>  
> Cheers,
> Rusty