Return-Path: Received: from imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 395683 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:24:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.70; envelope-from=sqpilot@bellsouth.net Received: from Carol ([209.214.45.129]) by imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with SMTP id <20040906212403.YEXZ1789.imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net@Carol> for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:24:03 -0400 Message-ID: <002301c49457$cc9e2b80$812dd6d1@Carol> From: "paul" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Manifold Pressure Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:23:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C4942D.E2569220" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C4942D.E2569220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 1:06 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Manifold Pressure=20 Thanks David and Ed for the comments. =20 I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the MAP variables, and = the conclusion continues to be that my intake runners, and TB are too = small for best WOT "MAP", though that's not necessarily a bad thing. = I guess the important thing for me to keep in mind is that improving = the MAP, may not improve the power. It's entirely possible that my = smaller runners, and subsequent higher velocities are giving me more = power than I'd get with bigger runners. I certainly can't deny that I'm = making significantly more power than in any previous NA configuration. = I would expect that I'm matching, or slightly exceeding Tracy's 13B = static, and climb power in my current configuration. He had a good = pressure recovery scoop on the 13B, so it remains to be seen whether I = can match his power at speed. =20 Bottom line is that I'm happy with the current power that's being = produced, and any improvement beyond this point would require a huge = investment in time, and effort. At the moment, I have far bigger = problems, like adding enough oil cooling to make up for this extra = power. At least the current cooler isn't leaking (yet). =20 Thanks, Rusty (working on re-installing the series EWP) I have to agree with you, Rusty.....sooner or later (hopefully sooner) = you reach a point that you are happy with the power put out versus the = heat output and fuel consumption. Any fine tuning after that usually = gets expensive, time consuming and gives smaller gains in effeciency (in = comparison to initial effort that offered greater gains) , unless you = are an effeciency guru like Klaus Savier, who spends many dollars and = months trying to squeeze an extra knot out of his VariEze. Sometimes = good enough really IS good enough. Time to enjoy what you have, eh? = Just one more opinion. Paul Conner, happy with a NA 13b. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C4942D.E2569220 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Russell=20 Duffy
Sent: Monday, September 06, = 2004 1:06=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Manifold=20 Pressure

Thanks David and Ed for the=20 comments.  
 
I believe I have a pretty good = understanding of the MAP variables, and the conclusion continues to be = that my=20 intake runners, and TB are too small for best WOT "MAP", though that's = not=20 necessarily a bad thing.    
 
I guess the important thing = for me to keep=20 in mind is that improving the MAP, may not improve the = power.   It's=20 entirely possible that my smaller runners, and subsequent higher=20 velocities are giving me more power than I'd get with bigger = runners.  I certainly can't deny that I'm making = significantly=20 more power than in any previous NA configuration.  I would = expect=20 that I'm matching, or slightly exceeding Tracy's 13B static, and climb = power=20 in my current configuration.  He had a good pressure recovery = scoop on=20 the 13B, so it remains to be seen whether I can match his power at=20 speed. 
 
Bottom line is that I'm happy = with the=20 current power that's being produced, and any improvement beyond this = point=20 would require a huge investment in time, and effort.  At the = moment, I=20 have far bigger problems, like adding enough oil cooling to make up = for this=20 extra power.  At least the current cooler isn't leaking = (yet). =20
 
Thanks,
Rusty (working on = re-installing the series=20 EWP)
 
I have to agree with you, = Rusty.....sooner=20 or later (hopefully sooner) you reach a point that you are happy with = the=20 power put out versus the heat output and fuel consumption.  Any = fine=20 tuning after that usually gets expensive, time consuming and=20 gives smaller gains in effeciency (in comparison to = initial=20 effort that offered greater gains) , unless you are an effeciency guru = like=20 Klaus Savier, who spends many dollars and months trying to squeeze an = extra=20 knot out of his VariEze. Sometimes good enough really IS good = enough. =20 Time to enjoy what you have, eh?  Just one more opinion.  = Paul=20 Conner, happy with a NA 13b.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C4942D.E2569220--