X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with ESMTP id 3433834 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:24:09 -0500 Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v39.1.) id q.c22.5344e996 (34911) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:24:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-ma02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.141]) by cia-da02.mx.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA028-5c504974c53b1fa; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:24:03 -0500 Received: from mblk-d41 (mblk-d41.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.225]) by smtprly-ma02.mx.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMA026-5c504974c53b1fa; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:23:55 -0500 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Paul Lamar's Simple Fuel Injection Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:23:55 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 66.253.96.220 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: wrjjrs@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CB487A38FEE5D6_870_67F_mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 40627-STANDARD Received: from 66.253.96.220 by mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com (205.188.212.225) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:23:55 -0500 Message-Id: <8CB487A38CA7230-870-348@mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO ----------MB_8CB487A38FEE5D6_870_67F_mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Michael, These types of ideas show up on Paul's site from time to time. There was also a variable orifice carburettor that was "Super Simple" too. I mentioned at the time to Paul that the carb might violate Lectron patents. As such you can figure that the logic was good. You?usually find in practice that the implementation is rarely as simple as you thought it would be. It might work, but it would be a complete devlopment project of totally unique components. Ok if you have the time for such a project, otherwise get a commercially available carb or EFI. The thing that most people ignore is that there is no way around the development time needed. A lot of people expect to put Tracy's EMS on their engine and never need to tune anything...well hello that's not the way it works. That isn't a knock on the system either, just a realistic comment that NO SYSTEM that hasn't had EXACTLY the same setup as yours is going to work the same. So this is a long winded way to say that while Paul's idea is probably sound, unless you could design it yourself you would probably be better off with a comercially available system. Bill Jepson -----Original Message----- From: Michael McMahon To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 2:07 am Subject: [FlyRotary] Paul Lamar's Simple Fuel Injection I haven't seen any response on this list to the article that Paul Lamar posted a couple days ago (below). I'm very interested in objective discussion of merits and flaws, and there hasn't been much on the Rotary Engines list. Has anyone read it? Any opinions? Thanks, Michael >>>> Not entirely done as I will be updating it from time to time depending on your questions. >>>> http://www.rotaryeng.net/simple-cheap-555.html >>>> Paul Lamar -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ----------MB_8CB487A38FEE5D6_870_67F_mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Michael,
These types of ideas show up on Paul's site from time to time. There was also a variable orifice carburettor that was "Super Simple" too. I mentioned at the time to Paul that the carb might violate Lectron patents. As such you can figure that the logic was good. You usually find in practice that the implementation is rarely as simple as you thought it would be. It might work, but it would be a complete devlopment project of totally unique components. Ok if you have the time for such a project, otherwise get a commercially available carb or EFI. The thing that most people ignore is that there is no way around the development time needed. A lot of people expect to put Tracy's EMS on their engine and never need to tune anything...well hello that's not the way it works. That isn't a knock on the system either, just a realistic comment that NO SYSTEM that hasn't had EXACTLY the same setup as yours is going to work the same. So this is a long winded way to say that while Paul's idea is probably sound, unless you could design it yourself you would probably be better off with a comercially available system.
Bill Jepson


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael McMahon <afm528@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 2:07 am
Subject: [FlyRotary] Paul Lamar's Simple Fuel Injection

I haven't seen any response on this list to the article that Paul Lamar
posted a couple days ago (below).  I'm very interested in objective
discussion of merits and flaws, and there hasn't been much on the Rotary
Engines list.   Has anyone read it?  Any opinions?

Thanks,  Michael

>>>> Not entirely done as I will be updating it from time to time depending
on your questions.
>>>> http://www.rotaryeng.net/simple-cheap-555.html
>>>> Paul Lamar


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
----------MB_8CB487A38FEE5D6_870_67F_mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com--