X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1124362 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 23 May 2006 01:10:17 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.36; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.5.) id q.36c.51d9032 (40523) for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 01:09:26 -0400 (EDT) From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: <36c.51d9032.31a3f306@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 01:09:26 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1148360966" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5027 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1148360966 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/22/2006 11:33:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, keltro@att.net writes: Ed, Al and all, My first post about the "Sport Aviation" Rotary/Lycoming comparison questioned the fuel burn part of the test........It is my understanding that the "Powersport" fuel system lacks a leaning system........Does anyone in the group know if this is true ?? If this is true that would severely affect the Rotary fuel burn numbers........On the other hand if the "Powersport" system has a leaning capability do the owners know that the Rotary can be leaned very aggressively compared to the Lycoming as proved by Tracy Crook and verified by many others........Tracy has reported fuel specifics of as low as .47 lbs/hp/hr with aggressive leaning if I recall correctly !! Jump in here and help defend the Rotary reputation Tracy , Ed and any others now flying with "Real World Experience" !!! IMHO -- Kelly Troyer Dyke Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2 Kelly, And all, The Powersport system used in the test did NOT have leaning capacity. The Powersport principle owner reported on the other list. Hen said the system was far from optimized. He also commented the next system will allow +- 10% on mixture. The comment was also made that the new exhaust system is much quieter. The original was 92-93 DB at 50' which is loud. The new system is expansive but reported to be 89 DB which is much quieter. For aircraft use tuning will result in much better fuel burns. We also seem to need to be sure to have somekind of dynamic mixture control. Bill Jepson -------------------------------1148360966 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 5/22/2006 11:33:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20 keltro@att.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>
Ed, Al and all,
    My first post about the "Sport Aviation"=20 Rotary/Lycoming comparison questioned
the fuel burn part of the test........It is my understanding that the= =20 "Powersport" fuel
system lacks a leaning system........Does anyone in the group know if= =20 this is true ??
    If this is true that would severely affect the Rot= ary=20 fuel burn numbers........On the
other hand if the "Powersport" system has a leaning capability do the= =20 owners know
that the Rotary can be leaned very aggressively compared to the Lycom= ing=20 as proved
by Tracy Crook and verified by many others........Tracy has reported=20= fuel=20 specifics
of as low as .47 lbs/hp/hr with aggressive leaning if I recall correc= tly=20 !!
   Jump in here and help defend the Rotary reputation Tracy= ,=20 Ed and any others now
flying with "Real World Experience" !!! IMHO
--
Kelly Troyer
Dyke=20 Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2
Kelly,
And all, The Powersport system used in the test did NOT have leaning=20 capacity. The Powersport principle owner reported on the other list. Hen sai= d=20 the system was far from optimized. He also commented the next system will al= low=20 +- 10% on mixture. The comment was also made that the new exhaust system is=20= much=20 quieter. The original was 92-93 DB at 50' which is loud. The new system is=20 expansive but reported to be 89 DB which is much quieter. For aircraft use=20 tuning will result in much better fuel burns. We also seem to need to be sur= e to=20 have somekind of dynamic mixture control.
Bill Jepson
-------------------------------1148360966--