Message

Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 372069 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:46:56 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.38; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.107.116.221]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040820064617.WVPU3348.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:46:17 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] EM-2 MAP readings Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:46:26 -0700 Message-ID: <009c01c48681$6a52c910$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009D_01C48646.BDF3F110" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C48646.BDF3F110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 As I mentioned, my MAP reading is only 27 on the ground, at full = throttle. I thought I had this isolated to the intake being too restrictive, but = Tracy suspects it's more a matter of the way the ports are positioned on the = TWM throttle body. He also mentioned that someone else (Al, maybe) had the = same issue, with lower than expected MAP readings when using the ports on = their TWM. Is anyone using the TWM TB ports, and seeing near 30 MAP? I sure = wish I had documented this little tidbit of info from the previous version. =20 =20 Rusty; =20 Just back from vacation. I saw the same results with my TWM TB. I have = a bit of restriction up stream from the TB, but couldn=92t believe it = could be that much. I had concluded (probably with some discussion with Tracy) = that it was likely at least partially due to the post location. Your data = seems to confirm that. =20 There is likely some loss in the long TB barrel- I think it is about 4 = =BD=94 long. My barrels are 44 mm dia. What are yours? You can see my plot = of MAP vs RPM at = http://members.cox.net/alg3/Dynamometer%20test%20report.htm and scroll to near the bottom. It went all the way down to 25=94 at = 7000 rpm. I=92d be interested in what TWM has to say. =20 Al =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C48646.BDF3F110 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

As I mentioned, my MAP = reading is only 27 on the ground, at full throttle. I thought I had this = isolated to the intake being too restrictive, but Tracy suspects it's more a matter of the way the = ports are positioned on the TWM throttle body. He also mentioned that = someone else (Al, maybe) had the same issue, with lower than expected MAP = readings when using the ports on their TWM. Is anyone using the TWM TB = ports, and seeing near 30 MAP? I sure wish I had documented this = little tidbit of info from the previous version.

Rusty;

Just back from vacation.=A0 I saw = the same results with my TWM TB. =A0I have a bit of restriction up stream from = the TB, but couldn’t believe it could be that much. =A0I had concluded = (probably with some discussion with Tracy) that it was likely at least partially due to = the post location.=A0 Your data seems to confirm that.

There is likely some loss in the = long TB barrel- I think it is about 4 =BD” long.=A0 My barrels are 44 mm = dia.=A0 What are yours? =A0You can see my plot of MAP vs RPM at http://members.cox.net/alg3/Dynamometer%20test%20re= port.htm

and scroll to near the bottom.=A0 = It went all the way down to 25” at 7000 rpm.=A0 I’d be interested in = what TWM has to say.

Al

------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C48646.BDF3F110--