X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.51.86] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 931832 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 03 May 2005 21:01:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.4.51.86; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 May 2005 18:00:11 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 64.4.51.204 by BAY107-DAV14.phx.gbl with DAV; Wed, 04 May 2005 01:00:11 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [64.4.51.204] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Home again & Colorado trip & Ed's new engine Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:00:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0075_01C55023.25FB70C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 Seal-Send-Time: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:00:34 -0400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2005 01:00:11.0781 (UTC) FILETIME=[9FBBCB50:01C55044] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C55023.25FB70C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good point. High octane burns slower so more advance is required, all = else being equal. Tracy Remember that ED is using 100LL. Would that make a difference? Finn Lehanover@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 05/03/2005 08:17 Central Daylight Time, = lors01@msn.com writes: I have to wonder if there was something wrong with the old engine = or setup. Did you ever play with the ignition timing before? That is = about the only thing that can make a basically healthy engine give such = higher fuel burn. (retarded ignition timing). Anyway, glad you found = the extra efficiency & power. Even with a bit more weight & drag, your = -6 should not have been that much different than my -4. Tracy I would expect ignition timing to be advanced right through 30-35 = degrees with LOP operation. It would appear as very high octane fuel to the rotary. If you = notice EGT go up slightly with leaning, that is the cause. Lynn E. Hanover ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C55023.25FB70C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good point. High octane burns slower so more advance is = required, all=20 else being equal.

Tracy

Remember=20 that ED is using 100LL. Would that make a = difference?

Finn

Lehanover@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 05/03/2005 08:17 Central Daylight Time, lors01@msn.com writes:

I have to wonder if there was something wrong with the old = engine or=20 setup. Did you ever play with the ignition timing = before? That=20 is about the only thing that can make a basically healthy engine = give such=20 higher fuel burn. (retarded ignition timing). Anyway, = glad you=20 found the extra efficiency & power. Even with a bit more = weight=20 & drag, your -6 should not have been that much different than = my=20 -4.

Tracy

I would expect ignition timing to be advanced right through = 30-35=20 degrees with LOP operation.

It would appear as very high octane fuel to the rotary. If you = notice=20 EGT go up slightly with leaning, that is the cause.

Lynn E. = Hanover

------=_NextPart_000_0075_01C55023.25FB70C0--