Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.69; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <41C1FB4D.7070503@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:17:01 -0600
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison vs EFI
References: <list-570241@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-570241@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:

>   Hp don't mean anything as its all in CFM and at that time tne 
> biggest they offered was 350 CFM which will work fine on the big 
> lunged ancient airplane motors but we need free high flowing 
> carburetors, about 650 to 700 CFM is about right.
>  
>  
> I'm not following you here.  Why is 180 HP more CFM for us than for an 
> O-360?   I just sent them a question to see what the bore diameter is 
> on the top 3 sizes they list. 
>  
> I did notice that there was a FAQ on the Ellison page that says they 
> don't recommend auto fuel, since it could damage components in the 
> TBI.  I'm not sure how much this is real, vs CYA.  Ellison doesn't 
> seem all that much in favor of auto engine conversions in the first 
> place. 
>  
> Rusty (already talked to Van's once today, danger, danger) 

Rusty,

If you are leaning -7, I can turn you on to a barely touched tail kit 
here in Jackson MS. Email me off-list if you're interested.

Charlie