Return-Path: Received: from out010.verizon.net ([206.46.170.133] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 571272 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:07:24 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.170.133; envelope-from=finn.lassen@verizon.net Received: from verizon.net ([4.12.145.173]) by out010.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20041217190653.VFGS24714.out010.verizon.net@verizon.net> for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:06:53 -0600 Message-ID: <41C32E4B.8010206@verizon.net> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:06:51 -0500 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison vs EFI References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050907060207090701070408" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out010.verizon.net from [4.12.145.173] at Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:06:52 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050907060207090701070408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you. The reasons I haven't changed over yet are: 1) Sounds like work. 2) Money. Even with a 10% improvement in fuel usage, it's going to take quite a few hours flying time to make up for pumps, controller, fuel pressure sensors and any other parts (like injectors) I may need. Also with more power available actual fuel usage is likely to go up. The way I fly the throttle is basically an on-off switch :) 3) Weight. Those pumps are heavy and I expect the cheap manifold to increase weight at least 3 pounds. 4) High pressure fuel system. 5) Ugly bump on cowl. 6) I'd rather be flying. 7) Time. 8) Did I mention work? Finn Russell Duffy wrote: > the carb appeared to be much more fuel miserly; that conclusion > surprised me. Take a look at the article-perhaps this needs to be > investigated. Marc Wiese > > > Interesting. The other supporting data is that Finn is still using > carbs, and we know what a cheapskate Finn is :-) > > Thanks, > Rusty (RV-3 officially for sale, will start stripping it this weekend) > > > > --------------050907060207090701070408 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you.

The reasons I haven't changed over yet are:
1) Sounds like work.
2) Money. Even with a 10% improvement in fuel usage, it's going to take quite a few hours flying time to make up for pumps, controller, fuel pressure sensors and any other parts (like injectors) I may need.
Also with more power available actual fuel usage is likely to go up. The way I fly the throttle is basically an on-off switch :)
3) Weight. Those pumps are heavy and I expect the cheap manifold to increase weight at least 3 pounds.
4) High pressure fuel system.
5) Ugly bump on cowl.
6) I'd rather be flying.
7) Time.
8) Did I mention work?

Finn

Russell Duffy wrote:

Message
the carb appeared to be much more fuel miserly; that conclusion surprised me. Take a look at the article-perhaps this needs to be investigated. Marc Wiese

Interesting. The other supporting data is that Finn is still using carbs, and we know what a cheapskate Finn is :-)

Thanks,

Rusty (RV-3 officially for sale, will start stripping it this weekend)

--------------050907060207090701070408--