Return-Path: Received: from out004.verizon.net ([206.46.170.142] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 571291 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:23:20 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.170.142; envelope-from=rotary.coot@verizon.net Received: from [67.225.117.20] ([67.227.200.78]) by out004.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20041217192248.TPSB8290.out004.verizon.net@[67.225.117.20]> for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:22:48 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: res0c5l1@incoming.verizon.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:27:54 -0800 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: Ken Welter Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison vs EFI Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1108810806==_ma============" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out004.verizon.net from [67.227.200.78] at Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:22:47 -0600 --============_-1108810806==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" What carb are you using ??? Ken >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) --============_-1108810806==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison vs EFI
   What carb are you using ???
   Ken




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)

--============_-1108810806==_ma============--