Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=Dx5zqr2jdv9TI+6R38K49RtphtKKG9HELEAbddfzeJeknbPx0AmKGOisI10v3B0R;
  h=Received:Date:Subject:Content-Type:Mime-Version:From:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:53:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel Injector Position (was  Re: Making progress on Chris n Dave's Velocity Engine)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Jerry Hey <jerryhey@earthlink.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <list-1008139@logan.com>
Message-Id: <2B1EB584-E1DE-11D9-B64B-0003931B0C7A@earthlink.net>


On Monday, June 20, 2005, at 04:43 PM, Charlie England wrote:

> Jerry Hey wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 20, 2005, at 08:07 AM, David Staten wrote:
>>
>>     The injection controller will be the Real World Solutions EC2. It
>>     does stage. No, you aren't wrong. That is what I want. It's not
>>     overly complicated when you dont have to build it from scratch..
>>     thats why Im using the stock TB. The only thing I am having to fab
>>     is the runners and two injector bosses.
>>          I am using stock fuel injector ports on the primaries (which 
>> are
>>     in the block). Those are less than 2 inches away from the primary
>>     intake ports. I will not be moving them.
>>          As for secondary positioning, how far back can I go before I 
>> have
>>     to start worrying about the fuel charge not being inducted all the
>>     way into the secondary ports? As in... the fuel charge shot into
>>     the secondary runner (when secondaries are active) gets sucked all
>>     the way in on THAT intake stroke, and not, lets say.. the next
>>     one...Or are you saying that doesnt even matter? If injectors do
>>     better farther away from the port/way upstream, why are they not
>>     like that in the stock config? Several other EFI engines I've seen
>>     appear to inject RIGHT before the intake port (Noticed while
>>     shopping for intake parts), not way upstream...
>>          It seems that the folks who have difficulty idling at low 
>> power
>>     smoothly are the ones who 1) dont sequence their airflow into
>>     primaries first, secondaries only at higher power... and who have
>>     their injectors 20 something inches away from the ports. Thats
>>     just an observation I've picked up over the past year... and maybe
>>     its mistaken.
>>          Dave
>>
>>
>> Dave, based on Paul Lamar's current p port testing there is no 
>> problem with placing the injectors at the far end of the runners. 
>> This is also backed up by an article on the internet (How to 
>> Fabricate an Intake Manifold) The idle issue is not with injector 
>> location but rather with butterfly location. The further the 
>> butterflies are from the port, the worse the throttle response and 
>> idle. At least that is the current theory and is born out by Ed's 
>> experience when he place the butterflies at the far end of his intake 
>> runners. Jerry
>>
> Hopefully Ed will be back soon to confirm or refute this, but all of 
> Ed's intakes that I've seen have had the throttle body on the plenum 
> at the other end of the intake tubes. That's what he's using now, or 
> was when he left here Memorial Day weekend. The manifold he had 
> problems with had the *injectors* mounted over there with the throttle 
> body. (See Rusty's post also.) Ed has no problems with throttle 
> response using close mounted injectors & plenum mounted throttle body.
>
> Tracy has confirmed that the only way to adjust injector timing is 
> with the mechanical timing of the pickup on the engine. Moving the 
> injector 15-30" away from the rotor housing just seems like it would 
> have a radical effect on injector timing at low power settings when 
> the injector has a short 'on time' & there's a relatively long slug of 
> unfueled air. It seems to me that if the slug of 'fueled' air isn't 
> timed properly to enter the rotor chamber & get trapped there, part of 
> it will bounce around in the (cold) intake tubing & condense out on 
> the walls, especially at low power settings.  IIRC, one of the reasons 
> auto makers went from throttle body injection to direct port injection 
> was because fuel condensation on the tubing walls was causing 
> inconsistent & unpredictable mixtures.
>
> I visited Paul Conner back in November, before he had flown. At that 
> time he was using a throttle body with the injectors mounted on the 
> throttle body, away from the intake ports. The throttle body was 
> mounted more or less in an 'updraft' configuration, similar to a 
> typical a/c carb on a Lyc or Continental. With the engine idling 
> fairly smoothly, fuel was dripping out of the throttle body in almost 
> a steady stream. Now, if everything is working normally & the engine 
> is idling smoothly, where was the fuel coming from? This is not a 
> normal symptom of updraft a/c carbs or injector throttle bodies.
>
> Charlie

Well, we shall soon see.  My engine will be going on a test stand 
before the end of this year and then we will know.   I suspectthat side 
ported engines would have more difficulty breathing through a long 
runner then will a p port but that is just a guess on my part.  I am 
usually pretty good about staying out of speculative arguments but 
today I  had to open my mouth :-)    Jerry
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>