Return-Path: <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Received: from front1.chartermi.net ([24.213.60.123] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2)
  with ESMTP id 750077 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:33:11 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.213.60.123; envelope-from=ericruttan@chartermi.net
X-Virus-Scanned: by cgpav
Received: from [24.236.229.73] (HELO [192.168.2.2])
  by front1.chartermi.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6)
  with ESMTP id 275487833 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:32:24 -0500
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.300 [266.0.0]); Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:40:26 -0500
Message-ID: <013a01c5164d$e503ede0$0202a8c0@eric>
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-750079@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Water in the fuel
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:40:26 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478

I thought the trouble with the Carb is the probable venturi freeze if it was
flowing water.  A problem injected does not have.  But thinking and knowing
are differant.  Not betting the farm.  Just clarifying ideas.

Takeoff is the critical point.  Something I have never seen discussed is
knowing how long it takes for water to effect your engine.  It would seem
that one could introduce water in the fuel and run the engine up, and time
how long till the engine sees it.  Assuming this was well known one would
think that run ups on the ground for a longer period than this would be
excellent prevention.

Eric Ruttan


From: "Jim Sower" <canarder@frontiernet.net>
> <... If the injectors only pumped ... ECU does not know it is water ...
Should not that keep up till the water is done ...>
>
> I suppose it should, but it doesn't.  The same scenario would apply to
> carburetors.  If you windmill long enough the water will pass through
> the system.  Part of the issue is that water has a nasty habit of
> rearing its ugly head right after takeoff when you really don't have
> enough time to crank it all through the engine.
>
> It could work, it should work, but it doesn't work.  Don't bet the farm
> ... Jim S.
>
> If that
>
> Eric Ruttan wrote:
>
> >There is a huge differance between water in the fuel and water injection
in
> >the intake.
> >
> >I used to race/daily drive a water (in the intake) injected engine.
Never
> >had a problem, and cant see how one would.  Never read anything on water
> >injecting being bad for an engine.  Read plenty on how it is good.
> >Especialy if you got a turbo.
> >
> >Water in the fuel is interesting tho.  Assuming 4 injectors flowing~15
GPH,
> >just how big a slug o water is required to stop that engine?  Can water
stop
> >our engines?  If the injectors only pumped water the engine would lose
> >power, but still windmill.  As long as it windmilled, the injectors would
> >still flow, as the ECU does not know it is water.  Should not that keep
up
> >till the water is done?  When the water is passed the engine restarts,
power
> >comes back.
> >
> >??
> >
> >Eric
> >P.S.
> >I still think a capasitance contraption in the fuel system, to tell me if
> >water is in it, is a great idea.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I used to do that.  I used a regular spray bottle with a trigger like
> >>you find around your laundry.  You had to get the engine up to over 2000
> >>rpm or it would quit.  The object was to blow all the carbon and scale
> >>
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >>emulsified (which we can't reliably do) water is a bad thing ... Jim S.
> >>
> >>
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>> Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>