X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2037895 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 May 2007 09:47:21 -0400 Received: from [71.99.154.112] by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JHV00MJSQAJFZG7@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 May 2007 08:47:08 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:50:57 -0400 From: Finn Lassen Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 question In-reply-to: To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-id: <464474C1.2090900@verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) I'm not Tracy but the way I understand it is you don't want this. Why did Powersport get such poor fuel efficiency against the Lycoming fly-offs in the RV-8's. Because there was no option for leaning past max power setting. I guess you could have a max-power/best-fuel-efficiency switch, but then again you don't have a single lever. And there would probably be times when you want something in-between and you're back to the variable mixture control. Ed has already answered the CS BS. Finn Thomas Jakits wrote: > Tracy, > ... > Single power-lever (maybe the prop-rpm separate or even that > controlled by single lever), no mixture adjustment needed... > > Best Regards, > > TJ