Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.169.126] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2577131 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:39:22 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:39:14 -0700 Received: from 65.137.51.236 by bay3-dav96.bay3.hotmail.com with DAV; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:39:14 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [65.137.51.236] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] Reply-To: "Tracy Crook" From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: Turbos & EM2 Survey Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:41:23 -0400 Organization: Real World Solutions Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C37922.CAE414E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2003 15:39:14.0343 (UTC) FILETIME=[04E61370:01C37944] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C37922.CAE414E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageReally good discussion of 'real world' factors on aircraft = turbocharging for the past few days. =20 Rusty's brief comment about fuel burn on boost is especially relevant. = I get frequent inquiries about reliability when running 'conservative' = manifold pressures of 30 - 40" Hg at cruise. The engine would probably = tollerate this but the ignored factor is fuel burn. A standard RV-3 = (with the original internal fuel tank) would have less than 1 hour = endurance when running at 40" MAP. At max power my RV-4 only has a 1.5 = hour endurance at sea level (30" MAP) and I don't have a turbo!. =20 This is not an argument against turbos, in fact I may soon have 'turbo = envy' when these guys get them operational. There are reasons why a = turbo can be a good thing, just be sure you know what they are. But the real reason for this post is to get an idea of what size EM2 = display would have the highest demand. I'm ordering the parts for the = first production batch next week and software development is 99% = complete. =20 The EM2 will be available in two different sizes but both have all the = same other features. The large format has a panel cutout width the same = size as a standard radio stack (6.2") with mounting flange out to 6.5". = Total heigth is 2.875" with a cutout heigth of 2.5". There are a lot of planes already out there with very little panel space = left so the smaller version would suit them better. The EM2-S measures = 4.7" wide x 2.55" tall with a panel cutout window of about 3.5" x 2".The = price for the smaller format is slightly lower but not enough to make = that a big factor. So, the question is, which would most pilots want? Any answer or guess = is welcome. =20 Thanks to all for the encouragement (& patience!) on this project. Tracy PS: For an example of what took so long, I just spent a week programming & = optimizing the damping factor for altimeter & VSI functions. Stuff like = this didn't even occure to me when I started. I saw the need when = static port pressure burbles due to turbulent airflow, wind gusts, etc = would send these readings all over the place. ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C37922.CAE414E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Really good discussion of 'real world' = factors on=20 aircraft turbocharging for the past few days.  
 
Rusty's brief comment about fuel burn = on boost is=20 especially relevant.  I get frequent inquiries about reliability = when=20 running 'conservative' manifold pressures of 30 - 40" Hg at = cruise.  =20 The engine would probably tollerate this but the ignored = factor is=20 fuel burn.  A standard RV-3 (with the original internal fuel tank) = would=20 have less than 1 hour endurance when running at 40" MAP. =20 At max power my RV-4  only has a 1.5 hour endurance = at sea=20 level (30" MAP) and I don't have a turbo!.   =20
 
This is not an argument against turbos, = in fact I=20 may soon have 'turbo envy'  when these guys get them=20 operational. There are reasons why a turbo can be a good thing, = just be=20 sure you know what they are.
 
But the real reason for this post is to = get an=20 idea of what size EM2 display would have the highest demand.  = I'm=20 ordering the parts for the first production batch next week and software = development is 99% complete.  
 
The EM2 will be available in two = different sizes=20 but both have all the same other features.  The large format has=20 a panel cutout width the same size as a standard radio = stack =20 (6.2") with mounting flange out to 6.5".   Total heigth is=20 2.875"  with a cutout heigth of 2.5".
 
There are a lot of planes already out = there with=20 very little panel space left so the smaller version would suit them=20 better.  The EM2-S measures 4.7" wide x 2.55" tall with a panel = cutout=20 window of about 3.5" x 2".The price for the smaller format is slightly = lower but=20 not enough to make that a big factor.
 
So, the question is, which would most = pilots=20 want?  Any answer or guess is welcome. 
 
Thanks to all for the encouragement = (&=20 patience!) on this project.
 
Tracy
 
PS:
For an example of  what took so = long, I just=20 spent a week programming & optimizing the damping factor = for=20 altimeter & VSI functions.  Stuff like this didn't even occure = to me=20 when I started.  I saw the need when static port pressure burbles = due to=20 turbulent airflow, wind gusts, etc would send these readings all over = the=20 place. 
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C37922.CAE414E0--