X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ispmxmta06-srv.alltel.net ([166.102.165.167] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 1033012 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:13:47 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=166.102.165.167; envelope-from=montyr2157@alltel.net Received: from Thorstwin ([166.102.185.184]) by ispmxmta06-srv.alltel.net with SMTP id <20060314001257.DNRC27467.ispmxmta06-srv.alltel.net@Thorstwin> for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:12:57 -0600 Message-ID: <000501c646fc$0fef4600$01fea8c0@Thorstwin> From: "M Roberts" To: Subject: heat output Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:13:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C646C9.C5312160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C646C9.C5312160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Conventional wisdom has me confused. Is it saying that the piston engine = does a better job at converting the fuel to work, and the Rotary wastes = a lot of fuel to heat the engine? But haven't we had reports of Rotaries = flying formation with Lycs with equivalent airframes and getting = effectively the same fuel burn, thus blowing a whole in this whole BSFC = argument? Would the answer to my question be that at equal burn rates, = the Rotary would spit more heat out the exhaust and have less to reject = through other means, but it also wouldn't be producing as much power? Yes. Depends on your definition of "a lot". Tracy gets good numbers = flying where the airframe is most efficient. This is slower than most = people fly. IIRC Tracy burned about 1 gal an hour more than Charlie = flying down to Texas. This was not a perfect test and I am going by = fallible memory of a phone conversation with Charlie. Even if the fuel = burn is 10% more it is really not worth worrying about if you fly the = normal 200hrs per year. If you are worried about the 10% there are = people out there who have the answer-Turbo compound. All you need to do = is spend about 10 million in development to get your $800 a year in fuel = back. Or you could just slow down and enjoy the view. Don't we all want = MORE time in the cockpit?=20 Now THERE is a no brainer! Monty=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C646C9.C5312160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Conventional wisdom has = me confused.=20 Is it saying that the piston engine does a better job at converting the = fuel to=20 work, and the Rotary wastes a lot of fuel to heat the engine? But = haven't we had=20 reports of Rotaries flying formation with Lycs with equivalent airframes = and=20 getting effectively the same fuel burn, thus blowing a whole in this = whole BSFC=20 argument? Would the answer to my question be that at equal burn rates, = the=20 Rotary would spit more heat out the exhaust and have less to reject = through=20 other means, but it also wouldn't be producing as much = power?

Yes. Depends on=20 your definition of "a lot". Tracy gets good numbers flying where the = airframe=20 is most efficient. This is slower than most people fly. IIRC Tracy = burned=20 about 1 gal an hour more than Charlie flying down to = Texas. This was=20 not a perfect test and I am going by fallible memory of a = phone=20 conversation with Charlie. Even if the fuel burn is 10% more it is = really=20 not worth worrying about if you fly the normal 200hrs per = year. If you=20 are worried about the 10% there are people out there who have the = answer-Turbo=20 compound. All you need to do is spend about 10 million in development to = get=20 your $800 a year in fuel back. Or you could just slow down and enjoy the = view.=20 Don't we all want MORE time in the cockpit?

Now = THERE is a no=20 brainer!

Monty

------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C646C9.C5312160--