Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.166.167] (account <marv@lancaironline.net>)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0b8)
  with HTTP id 1751028 for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:50:47 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary]Re: Wastegates
To: flyrotary
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0b8
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:50:47 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1751028@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <008801c26365$5bff4d20$4401020a@u036fr3za011>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Barnhart" <dsbarno@vbe.com>:

>  At some point I'll run out of boost, and that point will define my
critical
> altitude.  BTW, I'll pop-off the intake manifold at 34" MAP....
reliability,
> reliability, reliability.  Comments, of course, are welcome and
appreciated.

Marv,

Just curious why the 34" MAP limit.

Barny


[When I first decided to use a 13B in my airplane I put together my "short" 
list of priorities... #1 was reliability, #2 was power, #3 was reliability, #4 
was economy, and #5 was reliability.  Given the recurring theme, I decided 
early in my turbo planning to limit boost to an extremely conservative number. 
 Since most of the turbo guys talk boost in PSI and after hearing numbers for 
max boost that went anywhere from 7psi to 12psi and beyond, and since each psi 
is about equal to 2"hg I figured on a standard SL day with the ambient 
pressure around 30" that conservatively boosting to 2psi (or 34" MAP) would 
preclude the possibility of overstressing the insides and fit well with my 
reliability criteria.  Even if I go to 15k ft and demand another 7.5psi of 
boost to maintain my full power MAP of 34", that's all the MAP the engine will 
be seeing and that's just fine with me.   

Make sense now?

         <Marv>              ]