|
|
Yes, I agree. It is not infrequent that when unbelievable claims for performance parameters are made - they are made in isolation.
For example measure flow with no obstruction would give high CFM flow rates
Measure Stagnation pressure with no flow would give high boost pressure
But, if you tried to get the flow rate your boost would drop very low.
You will also see that same approach used when folks are making unrealistic claims about engine power and fuel consumption. Some I have seen for these small turboprop engines fall into that category. You would see 8 gph fuel consumption, then at another spot you would see 180 HP, etc. Well, you are not going to get 180HP from burning 8 gph in a turbine or in a piston engine. When pressed, one company claimed to have developed a new fuel injection system that gave them fantastic fuel economy. When you think what the airlines would pay for something that would just give them a couple of % additional fuel economy - it certainly didn't make much sense for a genius like that to be mucking around with experimental engines {:>).
I think sometimes folks simply misinterpret or misunderstand the data - they climb on board and find it hard to get off the wagon when others point out possible flaws in the situation..
That old saying "..If it looks too good to be true ......" is hard to fault.
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: superchargers electric
Greg Ward wrote:
Yet, their website advertises up to 8 PSI, and the motor doesn't look that big. Also the "Thrasher Motorsport" site that they talk about makes no mention of them.
Curiouser, and curiouser.
Greg
Possible they could get 8PSI of static, or maybe at idle, ie. they're generating lots of pressure, but no flow?
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|