X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:34:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m27.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1879028 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:10:34 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.8; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id q.bd0.ec1c68e (40522) for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:09:33 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:09:33 EST Subject: Dyno HP X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1172862573" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5358 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1172862573 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not a single individual posted enough information about their HP claims to make any comparison. For Aviation purposes, HP ratings are reported at a standard - sea level (baro 29.921" Hg, 1013.25mb), 59F (15C) and 0% humidity. SAE HP ratings are reported at a standard, too - baro of 29.235" Hg (990mb), 77F and 0% humidity. What does that mean? It means that aircraft engines at the aviation standard show HP numbers that are 5% higher than SAE standard. Wait, what about water vapor? At 50% relative humidity, there is about a 2% loss in SAE HP, somewhat less if one is comparing to the aviation standard. So, are all these dyno reports corrected for the conditions under which the run was made? To SAE standards or the aviation standards? Or, to California standards? After all, if the test cell was using cold induction air on a high pressure dry day the results, without correction, are optimistic and the same engine at the same test cell, using warm moist air on a low pressure day would show a much lower HP if the data were not corrected to some standard. See _http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm_ (http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm) , for example. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Darwinian culling phrase: Watch This!


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1172862573 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not a single individual posted enough information about their HP claims= to=20 make any comparison.
 
For Aviation purposes, HP ratings are reported at a=20 standard - sea level (baro 29.921" Hg, 1013.25mb), 59F (15C)=20 and 0% humidity. 
 
SAE HP ratings are reported at a standard, too - baro of 29.2= 35"=20 Hg (990mb), 77F and 0% humidity.
 
What does that mean?  It means that aircraft engines at the=20 aviation standard show HP numbers that are 5% higher than SAE standard. = ;=20 Wait, what about water vapor?  At 50% relative humidity, there is about= a=20 2% loss in SAE HP, somewhat less if one is comparing to the aviation=20 standard.
 
So, are all these dyno reports corrected for the conditions under which= the=20 run was made?   To SAE standards or the aviation standards? O= r,=20 to California standards?  After all, if the test cell was using cold=20 induction air on a high pressure dry day the results, without correction, ar= e=20 optimistic and the same engine at the same test cell, using warm moist air o= n a=20 low pressure day would show a much lower HP if the data were not corrected t= o=20 some standard.
 
See http://wahiduddin.net/cal= c/calc_hp_dp.htm ,=20 for example.
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

Darwinian culling phrase: Watch=20 This!



AOL now offer= s free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------------------------1172862573--