X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-04.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2020175 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 May 2007 17:48:38 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-103-061.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.103.61]) by ms-smtp-04.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l41LlWm3008311 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 17:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00c601c78c3a$7e61d100$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:48:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Thanks for the clarification, Bob. So the concern was not about the "Sneak" circuit as such, but the emergency procedure activity should you need to disable a pair of injectors. I understand his reason and concern - it Sounds OK, but not what I would chose. Should that single switch fail - he could possibly be without either pair of injectors. I don't like single point of failure and try to avoid them where possible. But, this gentleman's risk profile is apparently different. He should ask Bernie about bad switches. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob White" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:08 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues > To put the quote in context, here is the rest of it. > > "... > His recommended solution is to put on-off switches for both the primary > and secondary injector pairs. His logic is this allows one to disable > an injector pair if it is misbehaving, and at the same time prevent the > backward EC-2 power phenomenon mentioned above. I am not a fan of this > solution - I wired my system with a single switch > primary-both-secondary. I figure if I have injector problems, I don't > want to be flipping a pair of switches trying to find the right > setting. There is comfort in knowing I need only flip a single switch > either up or down to disable which ever pair is not working. > ... > Mark" > > So it's really just an issue of his preference for having one switch > instead of two. Apparently he doesn't have a master switch for the bus > either or didn't turn it off. Otherwise, the only time the back power > causes a problem is one of the reset modes for the EC2. > > Bob W. > > > > > On Tue, 1 May 2007 14:34:35 -0400 > "Ed Anderson" wrote: > >> Interesting choice of words used - "I'm not a fan of this (Tracy's) >> solution ...". >> >> It raises the question in my mind that with Tracy (the designer) saying >> there is no problem, then this search for a "solution" is for What? >> problem? One in the mind of someone with lack of understanding of what >> this >> really means? or does someone have a real reason for why this "sneak >> circuit) should be considered a problem? Or is this "concern" being >> perhaps >> artificially generated by someone who has anomisity toward Tracy and >> wishes >> to raise unjustified concern about RWS products. Ah, the possibilities >> are >> too numerous for me to hazard a guess. >> >> The "sneak" circuit is no problem if you wire the EC2 per Tracy's >> guidelines - in my case, I must admit I did wire it a bit different - >> but, >> that resulted with my EC2 now having two independent power sources - one >> through the injectors and one through the EC2 normal power terminal. >> >> Not that I would ever normally attempt to power the EC2 only through the >> injectors - but,it is sort of nice in the unlikely event the line >> providing >> power to the EC2 terminals 33 & 34 should loose power. Power through the >> sneak circuit through the injectors would keep the engine running. So - >> see >> its not a problem, its a benefit.{:>) >> >> Too much, gotta get to work >> >> Ed >> >> >> ... >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Blake Lewis" >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:57 PM >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues >> >> >> > Tracy, >> > In his original message he said " I'm not a fan of this (Tracy's) >> > solution". I guess he went looking for other solutions.... >> > Blake >> > >> > On 5/1/07, Tracy Crook wrote: >> >> >> >> Different subject: >> >> >> >> I'm getting relayed messages from Paul's site giving "fixes" for the >> >> injector 'sneak' path that powers the EC2 when power is applied to the >> >> injectors. I don't know who raised the question but To whom it may >> >> concern, >> >> the suggested "fix" is completely wrong. Unless you wire the >> >> injectors >> >> directly to the battery with no switch of any kind (the instructions >> >> explicitly forbid this) there is nothing to be fixed. >> >> >> >> Not that this advice is needed on this list, but wouldn't it make >> >> sense >> >> to >> >> ask the guy that designed the thing? >> >> >> >> Tracy >> > >> > -- >> > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> > Archive and UnSub: >> > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > > -- > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com > 3.8 Hours Total Time and holding > Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html