Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.66; envelope-from=Dastaten@earthlink.net
Message-ID: <47C90CCC.4040001@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:59:08 -0600
From: David Staten <Dastaten@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Still fighting the good fight against the machine/rotary
References: <list-2770960@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2770960@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>
>
>     On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Christopher Barber
>     <CBarber@texasattorney.net <mailto:CBarber@texasattorney.net>> wrote:
>
>
>          
>           When I went around to the engine I could clearly hear the
>         primaries clicking away, but at a MUCH reduced volume of the
>         secondary's.  Does this matter.  Do the two different types
>         have this significant of a sound difference? 
>

In our installation you have 500 cc primaries and 1500 cc secondaries. I 
bought these to support the fuel flows we anticipated with a boosted, 
ported engine.The 1500's are new. I dont remember if the 500's were new 
or scavenged from the 3 cores we bought. I will have to check my email 
reciepts.

We WILL have a significant retuning factor with regards to the staging 
point. Once you get the below staging point sorted out.. with EGT/oxy 
probe, then we can set the secondary correction factor on the EC2.. so 
that the transition in mixture isnt apparent.

Dave