X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.107] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9) with SMTP id 4491719 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:50:23 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.198.107; envelope-from=echristley@att.net Received: (qmail 83258 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2010 01:49:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1286156988; bh=DTjOxwR74Bbo8qnQ2ttinyUxMzRUjuw53/4RNP3A7Ek=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ZESKWZzPlG9rNQmo/x/J302qScuNkrXh/6YMVJcd4QK1nrmPvtxSHKdTiVlu4flFtrG2NMvjmo0uyjs3tUZsqBSB0jcmxKkISou4V4hIBGvX9FEdPUXSU7YSD8wWREAbfbmJt+qq9WASnR0i1cRHlEkh8Wlos5ibITuef1h3sIo= Received: from [192.168.1.1] (echristley@74.242.196.151 with plain) by smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Oct 2010 18:49:47 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: 40RP3pGswBDvPav1a.I8eMv.KS8bdgWBnCloVoKaow-- X-YMail-OSG: WNHV9DoVM1kgweJN7dltXdqgKcPZT1pUcLaEX90hCQ_lZif uVOkkeN8IXdrIxPNfGe4qspuhRRpZ3qhMYtGlWr2qpAP4BpLaRlcbGa.zfQX HYIlY1fedwY5bmEVpz4LPgUvbNfZx0fmx44bmeLcMawpwGQCu_Qavm3O5IOb zt5AmJOUrMscsz0HYOc_Q.psT5mSwxNth1cs2qe0ELZzGNM_CAj0fpy4AQMF Ev_sTbdvqY1XoydPZu_JoU5zeJuIg11MSbzUr9u3hPw-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4CA932B7.2060703@att.net> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:49:43 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@att.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Simple Dyno References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060408010208000104080004" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060408010208000104080004 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/03/2010 07:54 AM, Lehanover@aol.com wrote: > I think I've been monitoring this list since forever. I posted a > message concerning this technique on Monday, September 11, 2006 9:02 AM. > > > At that time, I had lost the equation information, and I'm very > happy to see them come around again. More detailed equations are > in the alt.rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup, if anyone can find an > archive somewhere that dates back before 2006. I'm pretty sure > that it included correction for standard atmosphere, but I haven't > been able to find it. > > LE Hanover wrote: > > Here is a simple mechanism for reducing readings to some standard so > that HP readings from any source (that had also been corrected to sea > level standard day) can be accurately compared. > http://www.csgnetwork.com/relhumhpcalc.html > That'll show you how the engine performance will change with the atmospheric conditions. It doesn't show you how the energy absorbed by the prop would be modified by the same conditions. And the fence post building time IS working on the plane. It will be prop #2, for some very vague definition of prop. Gotta have at least three before I have something worthy of being considered flight ready. --------------060408010208000104080004 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/03/2010 07:54 AM, Lehanover@aol.com wrote:
I think I've been monitoring this list since forever.  I posted a message concerning this technique on Monday, September 11, 2006 9:02 AM.

At that time, I had lost the equation information, and I'm very happy to see them come around again.  More detailed equations are in the alt.rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup, if anyone can find an archive somewhere that dates back before 2006.  I'm pretty sure that it included correction for standard atmosphere, but I haven't been able to find it.
 
 
LE Hanover wrote:
Here is a simple mechanism for reducing readings to some standard so that HP readings from any source (that had also been corrected to sea level standard day) can be accurately compared.
 


That'll show you how the engine performance will change with the atmospheric conditions.  It doesn't show you how the energy absorbed by the prop would be modified by the same conditions.

And the fence post building time IS working on the plane.  It will be prop #2, for some very vague definition of prop.  Gotta have at least three before I have something worthy of being considered flight ready.
--------------060408010208000104080004--