Return-Path: Received: from relay01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.131.34] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2577275 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:11:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 3717 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2003 17:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frontiernet.net) ([65.73.142.128]) (envelope-sender ) by relay01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.6) with SMTP for ; 12 Sep 2003 17:11:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3F61F0B4.347CD4A1@frontiernet.net> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:13:40 -0400 From: Jim Sower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbos & EM2 Survey References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D919DBFEFC4754B39FCC804D" --------------D919DBFEFC4754B39FCC804D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tracy, I for one would prefer the larger display. I could make room for it by eliminating a lot of steam gauges. Keep up the good work ... Jim S. Tracy Crook wrote: > Really good discussion of 'real world' factors on aircraft > turbocharging for the past few days. 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!. 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. 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. 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. -- Jim Sower Crossville, TN; Chapter 5 Long-EZ N83RT, Velocity N4095T --------------D919DBFEFC4754B39FCC804D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tracy,
I for one would prefer the larger display. I could make room for it by eliminating a lot of steam gauges.
Keep up the good work ... Jim S.

Tracy Crook wrote:

Really good discussion of 'real world' factors on aircraft turbocharging for the past few days. 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!. 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. 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. 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.

--
Jim Sower
Crossville, TN; Chapter 5
Long-EZ N83RT, Velocity N4095T
--------------D919DBFEFC4754B39FCC804D--