Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.131.36; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <420A4193.2030003@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -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: Ellison, the missing piece
References: <list-721894@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-721894@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<... Isn't there a law of motor performance that says that two motors 
putting out the same horsepower are consuming the same amount of 
air&fuel, assuming efficiency differences were not significant ...>
Yes.  But an assumption that efficiency differences are not significant 
different is *fatally *flawed.  The notion that two engines will consume 
the same amount of air & fuel sort of implies perfection in the delivery 
of air & fuel. 
The point of much of this discussion is that the Ellison will deliver 
sufficient air with sufficient efficiency to a Lyc but will *not* 
deliver enough air efficiently enough to a 13B to enable the engine to 
make the power it should.  A rotary would perform even worse if you 
attached a Marvin Dribbler carburetor to it.

EFI is the way to go ... even if electronics and computers spook us ... 
Jim S.


Tom wrote:

> I'm under the impression I have an answer.
>  
> Isn't there a law of motor performance that says that two motors 
> putting out the same horsepower are consuming the same amount of 
> air&fuel, assuming efficiency differences were not significant?
>  
> So if you had a 13b and a O-360 putting out the same horsepower for a 
> single given 1 revolution of the propeller, they should be consuming 
> the same amount of air and fuel during that 1 propeller revolution. (I 
> THINK chosing 1 propeller rpm is a correct standard)
>  
> Bill pointed out that the 13b operates at a higher rpm, and we know 
> that there's more combustion charges consumed by the 13b to make that 
> 1 prop rpm. 
>  
> The difference, the missing piece, each 13b combustion charge consumes 
> a SMALLER amount of fuel/air than the piston powerplants less frequent 
> combustion charge.   ???   So the 13b burns a smaller amount more 
> frequently.   ???
>  
> If this is all true, then the Ellison isn't on the trash heap yet.
>  
> Tom
>
> */WRJJRS@aol.com/* wrote:
>
>     Group,
>      I want to remind everyone about how much a priority the large
>     volume inlets are to us. I believe Ed Anderson was mentioning in
>     one of his posts how difficult it can be to get a MAP signal in
>     the airbox of one of our PP engines. This is a perfect indication
>     of why the smaller throttle bodies used on some of the slow
>     turning engines will kill our HP.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=30648/*http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/jibjabinaugural.html>