X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2019902 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 May 2007 14:34:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-103-061.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.103.61]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l41IXNHZ018837 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 14:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000501c78c1f$5ec45b30$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:34:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Interesting choice of words used - "I'm not a fan of this (Tracy's) solution ...". It raises the question in my mind that with Tracy (the designer) saying there is no problem, then this search for a "solution" is for What? problem? One in the mind of someone with lack of understanding of what this really means? or does someone have a real reason for why this "sneak circuit) should be considered a problem? Or is this "concern" being perhaps artificially generated by someone who has anomisity toward Tracy and wishes to raise unjustified concern about RWS products. Ah, the possibilities are too numerous for me to hazard a guess. The "sneak" circuit is no problem if you wire the EC2 per Tracy's guidelines - in my case, I must admit I did wire it a bit different - but, that resulted with my EC2 now having two independent power sources - one through the injectors and one through the EC2 normal power terminal. Not that I would ever normally attempt to power the EC2 only through the injectors - but,it is sort of nice in the unlikely event the line providing power to the EC2 terminals 33 & 34 should loose power. Power through the sneak circuit through the injectors would keep the engine running. So - see its not a problem, its a benefit.{:>) Too much, gotta get to work Ed ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blake Lewis" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:57 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues > Tracy, > In his original message he said " I'm not a fan of this (Tracy's) > solution". I guess he went looking for other solutions.... > Blake > > On 5/1/07, Tracy Crook wrote: >> >> Different subject: >> >> I'm getting relayed messages from Paul's site giving "fixes" for the >> injector 'sneak' path that powers the EC2 when power is applied to the >> injectors. I don't know who raised the question but To whom it may >> concern, >> the suggested "fix" is completely wrong. Unless you wire the injectors >> directly to the battery with no switch of any kind (the instructions >> explicitly forbid this) there is nothing to be fixed. >> >> Not that this advice is needed on this list, but wouldn't it make sense >> to >> ask the guy that designed the thing? >> >> Tracy > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html