Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #24211
From: Ian Dewhirst <ianddsl@magma.ca>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel Injector Position
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:20:08 -0400
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message
Hi Rusty, I think that part of the problem is that you did not have an enrichment circuit that briefly increased injector open time as a function of butterfly opening speed; same idea as an accel pump on a carburetor.  If you look at TBI injection systems in automobiles ( or a v8 with a 4 bbl on a tunnel ram for that matter) they have longish runs and no hesitation problems.
 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of Russell Duffy
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 6:56 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel Injector Position

Rusty, where were the butterflies located? Jerry 
 
Hi Jerry,
 
I was using a TWM throttle body, with 4 injector pockets, so the injectors, and butterflies were both at about 30 inches from the ports.  It's my understanding that the issue is with the injector distance, not the butterflies.  
 
It would be interesting to try putting only the secondaries at a distance, and make the staging point as high as you can.  This would give you a nice cooling of the intake charge under full throttle ops, but maybe (key word) not hurt throttle response that much.  This could be particularly useful for a turbo without an intercooler. 
 
FWIW, the cooling of the runners was significant.  During my initial runs (in the summer), I shut the engine down a couple times to go look for leaks, since I was getting water drops on my canopy with the cowling off.  Turns out, it was condensation on the intake runners that was blowing off, and they were cold to the touch. 
 
Cheers,
Rusty (where the heck is Ed when you need him)
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster