X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [209.87.238.133] (HELO intldata.ca) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.10) with ESMTP id 2194038 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:29:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.87.238.133; envelope-from=jwhaley@intldata.ca Received: from jwhaley ([209.87.238.175]) by intldata.ca (intldata.ca) (MDaemon PRO v9.5.6) with ESMTP id md50000637536.msg for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:25:41 -0400 From: "Jeff Whaley" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] last time, i promise - carb vs EFI Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:25:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0066_01C7CD03.15753FB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Thread-Index: AcfM7v11N2BHv7tBS4S/94JwWBH4hwANPxXQ In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Processed: intldata.ca, Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:25:41 -0400 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 209.87.238.175 X-Return-Path: jwhaley@intldata.ca X-Envelope-From: jwhaley@intldata.ca X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Reply-To: jwhaley@intldata.ca Message-ID: X-MDAV-Processed: intldata.ca, Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:25:42 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C7CD03.15753FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your question is best answered by Tracy; however, if I remember Tracy's literature correctly, he went from an estimated 160 hp (with Mikuni carbs) to an estimated 180 hp with his first implementation of EFI . if these numbers are correct then it's 180 / 160 or about 12.5% increase. Jeff (engine running again after forced rebuild) _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of kevin lane Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:01 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] last time, i promise - carb vs EFI I still never got an answer to my original question; how much more power comes from EFI vs. carb? or is it a case that efi is just better tuned at all rpms since it has so many easily controllable parameters? does efi produce an optimum mixture and finer fuel droplets that can't be matched by the carb? if it does produce more complete burning and efficiency, how much? I hear these type stmts, but never numbers. are we talking 5%, 10%, 20%? kevin (renesis in my future :-) __________ NOD32 2412 (20070723) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C7CD03.15753FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Your question is best answered by = Tracy; however, if I remember Tracy’s literature correctly, = he went from an estimated 160 hp (with Mikuni carbs) to an estimated 180 hp with = his first implementation of EFI … if these numbers are correct then = it’s 180 / 160 or about 12.5% increase.

Jeff (engine running again after = forced rebuild)

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of kevin lane
Sent: Monday, July 23, = 2007 2:01 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] last = time, i promise - carb vs EFI

I still never got an answer to my = original question; how much more power comes from EFI vs. carb? or is it a case that efi is just better tuned at all rpms since it = has so many easily controllable parameters? does efi produce an optimum = mixture and finer fuel droplets that can't be matched by the carb? if it = does produce more complete burning and efficiency, how much? I hear = these type stmts, but never numbers. are we talking 5%, 10%, = 20%? kevin (renesis in my future :-)

__________ NOD32 2412 (20070723) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C7CD03.15753FB0--