X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm24-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.236.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4949299 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:19:01 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.236.143; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from [66.94.237.127] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2011 02:18:27 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.116] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2011 02:18:27 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1021.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2011 02:18:27 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 236751.74150.bm@omp1021.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 16070 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 02:18:26 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (echristley@65.190.53.180 with plain) by smtp107.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2011 19:18:26 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: 40RP3pGswBDvPav1a.I8eMv.KS8bdgWBnCloVoKaow-- X-YMail-OSG: m0jzWYcVM1lHl2fq2yCvgKJN8IwC84lrSOzfTH5QY7sp_LD 3OnCKYSmsi5v86ZqXIRVjlfnYdMRSSm7KGWc1vJQUqSPDOCYqRAuzbTwU8zZ jXj_XltH.OvvQJ9NeRYuqzfnJdrLkmrSbjzQwTV41uE4yxc0bokhO4ZSzt0K YdTbLyeSoogoFjWUZFyvDNMxJZEZTtEUT1uqBzQaRcNTJLCJ5bFLotDMaq9V N868DZ5YKCvBwmyLA0V2.u677P4AMeNap9uKb56mGvP0Y3cQ9obz3FatcydD I7vZgy.TSYSia9Sd2NrPH3jJ6a2qiRPk3cabkqpEuHhKsVSJPxA-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DAB9F71.3060704@nc.rr.com> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:18:25 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@att.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 16X Torque and Fuel Economy References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050102010004050801010904" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050102010004050801010904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/16/2011 06:37 AM, Ed Anderson wrote: > Well, not necessarily, Bill - if you improve the BSFC by improving the > combustion process through various means (direct injection, different > combustion chamber geometry, etc) you can theoretically get more HP > with less fuel used - NOT that we are likely to see that. But, I > would agree that for all practical purposes, if you want twice the HP, > you had better plan on twice the fuel burn. > Ed > That's not a bad equation, as a first estimation; but, isn't improving BSFC the point in the reshaped combustion chamber and direct injection? Just because you have an extra 100Hp doesn't mean you have to use it. ok...I agree....that last statement was a little ridiculous. I mean, we are "hairy chested" and all. --------------050102010004050801010904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/16/2011 06:37 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:

Well, not necessarily, Bill - if you improve the BSFC by improving the combustion process through various means (direct injection, different combustion chamber geometry, etc) you can theoretically get more HP with less fuel used - NOT that we are likely to see that. But, I would agree that for all practical purposes, if you want twice the HP, you had better plan on twice the fuel burn.

Ed

That's not a bad equation, as a first estimation; but, isn't improving BSFC the point in the reshaped combustion chamber and direct injection?

Just because you have an extra 100Hp doesn't mean you have to use it.

ok...I agree....that last statement was a little ridiculous. I mean, we are "hairy chested" and all.
--------------050102010004050801010904--