X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4552119 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:03:50 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by ewy1 with SMTP id 1so3737154ewy.25 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lWJjVOXSB+k4qG/6Vn7sW2DOSuZOD9cuUp4XJzTaAUY=; b=IP1SCcajACrmbr8k+QrvnX++ydDRxu05eN9TIxN92QphDHdDWzQ9Rnb5SBMxDpDkXi LeX23cLboXpOrS8M4DDYRy7p6Kpijc9tZhYQG3zl/oqwgrhu/tkDlBenWPYnmtg6Rqfg NFfALclOeD+1dSyXLCMK3o4tgoOPShsG6ii2c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=WZWuMwNMebfAYHaCR3AmeyahwdHzco2vmhxixOQsxYBXsXpm7Xcfa8DVNF5htEYPtS Wa7mMH2oMX6nDEDy2wnpdUv7LaOAwBmDu9ViY312PscOJzz3iVJrecCJIKGW1jLNZ0aL FvokuAUmDsY9np7jU8FGDwWBqOszaagVhkSeA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.15.210 with SMTP id l18mr897136eba.22.1288710192220; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.26.8 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:03:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:03:12 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c43c239cbd20494133981 --0015174c43c239cbd20494133981 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed, I measure the manifold pressure at the unused oil injection ports in the rotor housings. The EM-2 MAP reads in the upper 20's while at WOT, so I don't think I have a problem with this. The MCT was as received, which was set up for Tracy's injectors. I assume they were 460cc, but that's just a guess. I'm running 60# DEKA IV injectors. Could there possibly be an impedance mismatch between the two types? Mark On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Ed Anderson wrot= e: > Hi Mark, > > Injectors are certainly large enough - six injectors at 60 lb/hr would > give you a max flow rate capacity of around 58 gallons/hour - far more th= an > you are reporting fuel burn wise. > > I guess what I am wondering is how your manifold pressure is registering = at > WOT. The PP as I recall can have a problem providing reliable/consistent > manifold pressure - no good source? So exactly how is your EC2/3 getting > its manifold pressure signal ? What comes to mind is that if there is a > problem getting a good consistent manifold pressure reading at WOT - coul= d > that possibly result in your injectors injecting less than you would expe= ct. > > In other words, if manifold pressure was low relative to what you would > expect at WOT (near ambient) then turning up the manual mixture control > would only provide adjustment against the smaller target pulse duration f= or > that lower Manifold pressure rather than WOT manifold pressure. > > Ed > > Edward L. Anderson > Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC > 305 Reefton Road > Weddington, NC 28104 > http://www.andersonee.com > http://www.eicommander.com > > > > > > *From:* stevei@carey.asn.au > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:24 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers > > Hi Mark > > Are you in a position to confirm your fuel rail pressure? > Fuel injected =3D Pulse width AND injector size AND fuel pressure. > Cheers > > Steve Izett > > > On 02/11/2010, at 4:42 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: > > Tracy, > > As I recall the low end numbers are around -50ish. So there is still roo= m > for adjustment. When running WOT, turning the mixture knob full CW doesn= 't > get the mixture bar to show up on the EM-2 screen. I find this odd as I'= m > running 60# injectors. I guess that's why the low end numbers are in the > -50 range. > > I'll post a question on the Lancair list regarding the most efficient > cruise speed for the Lancair ES airframe. > > Mark > > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tracy wrote: > >> *"So, if it is going LOP in those addresses, which it is, it would >> explain why power drops off as I open the throttle to WOT.*" >> >> That's new data to me. Yes, that would certainly cause a loss of >> power. Are you able to compensate by turning up the mixture control? = Are >> the MAP table values at the low end above minimum value? The right thin= g to >> do depends on these answers. If answer is yes to the 2nd one, then you >> should bump up the value in Mode 3. >> >> The most efficient point on most airframes is the point where the induce= d >> drag curve crosses the parasitic drag curve. On RV's that happens at ar= ound >> an indicated airspeed of 135 mph. It will probably be higher than that = on a >> Lancair but I've never seen the curves on that airplane. >> >> Tracy >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: >> >>> *Tracy wrote:* >>> *Having said that, I think there is still a good possibility that your >>> drop in power above 6000 is not due to runner length.* >>> >>> Tracy, >>> I suspect it could be tuning as I've hit the max adjustment (+127) on t= he >>> EC-2 MCT for the addresses in the upper 20" range, so it looks like I n= eed >>> to adjust the injector pulse width and then start over on the tuning. = So, >>> if it is going LOP in those addresses, which it is, it would explain wh= y >>> power drops off as I open the throttle to WOT. I'll do more tuning whe= n I >>> get my updated EC-2 back. (will go out in today's mail) >>> >>> Where does one find the "most efficient operationg point" for a >>> particular airframe? Is this the same as LDmax? >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tracy wrote: >>> >>>> *"The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always occurs at the torque >>>> peak as that is where the engine takes in the most amount of air for e= ach >>>> revolution of the engine. The VE is optimum. In other words it is th= e most >>>> efficient operating point for the engine." >>>> * >>>> Mark, >>>> That is the point of minimum pumping losses in the engine, NOT the mo= st >>>> overall efficient point of operation. It ignores the many other fac= tors >>>> that affect BSFC. If you look at Mazda's data on BSFC, the best poin= t is >>>> usually around 5000 rpm. >>>> >>>> It also ignores the most efficient operating point of your airframe. = If >>>> you tune the engine for a higher rpm torque peak you WILL make more HP= , you >>>> will fly faster but you will burn a lot more fuel. >>>> >>>> Having said that, I think there is still a good possibility that your >>>> drop in power above 6000 is not due to runner length. >>>> >>>> Tracy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Mark Steitle wrot= e: >>>> >>>>> Al, >>>>> >>>>> Isn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)/5252. >>>>> >>>>> I'm more focused on peak Volumetric Efficiency (VE). According to *= Fundamentals >>>>> of Intake System Design*, (ACRE) "The lowest fuel burn per HP >>>>> generated always occurs at the torque peak as that is where the engin= e takes >>>>> in the most amount of air for each revolution of the engine. The VE = is >>>>> optimum. In other words it is the most efficient operating point for= the >>>>> engine." >>>>> >>>>> So, I will be good tuning for peak torque. Do you have a dyno chart >>>>> on your 20B that you will share? I find it interesting that your int= ake >>>>> runners are only 13". >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Al Gietzen wro= te: >>>>> >>>>>> Keep in mind that the graph is peak torque (T)); not peak HP. The >>>>>> peak HP (which is what you=92re after would be at higher rpm. HP = =3D T x >>>>>> RPM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Al >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.ne= t] >>>>>> *On Behalf Of *stevei@carey.asn.au >>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 01, 2010 1:09 AM >>>>>> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >>>>>> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have attached the Leman intake dimensions from Paul L. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope this is helpful. Can't remember whether this measurement was to >>>>>> the rotor face or manifold face. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Izett >>>>>> >>>>>> Perth Western Australia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand the sausage illustration. But if what you propose were >>>>>> true, then why did Mazda make such a major effort to design and >>>>>> implement the variable intake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor? Tha= t tells >>>>>> me that runner length does make a significant difference on the p-po= rt >>>>>> motor. Also, if tuned runners didn't matter for peripheral ports, t= hen why >>>>>> do they tune the exhaust runners on the 13B's? Somewhere I have a c= hart >>>>>> showing the effect of runner length, but I'm not sure that the data = is from >>>>>> a p-port motor. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry < >>>>>> bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don=92t think that will work with the PP. You never actually bloc= k >>>>>> the inlet. You just cut off the end of the flow of air as the apex = flies by >>>>>> and it starts to fill the next chamber. Think of the flow as a long= sausage >>>>>> that is going through a propeller made of a strand of wire 2 or 3 MM= thick >>>>>> and being cut into sections. It is never blocked. I doubt that the= re are >>>>>> any reflections and if there are, they would be very small and of li= ttle >>>>>> benefit to enhance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that is why the PP is so much stronger than the side port. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill B >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.ne= t] >>>>>> *On Behalf Of *Mark Steitle >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >>>>>> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> George, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for the delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar and measu= re >>>>>> the runner length to be sure. It is 24" bellmouth to rotor face, 2"= OD. >>>>>> Exhaust is 2" OD also, running the stock 20b exhaust splitters. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, my power seems to peak around 6000 rpm. What length intake runn= er >>>>>> length would it take to bring peak power up to around 6500 rpm? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, George Lendich >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>> That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, runner >>>>>> length and exhaust header ID size. >>>>>> >>>>>> George (down under) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Mark Steitle >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 30, 2010 7:38 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> With the current setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm >>>>>> still tuning on the upper addresses of the EC-2. My old engine did = best >>>>>> around 6500-6600 running the same prop. So, I feel there is somethi= ng that >>>>>> isn't quite right on the new P-Port motor... maybe intake runners to= o short, >>>>>> intake or exhaust too restrictive, timing off a bit, etc. It defini= tely >>>>>> makes more hp than the old motor did in the 5000-6000 range, but I f= eel that >>>>>> it should be producing more hp than I'm seeing in the 6000-7000 rang= e. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, things are still developing. Yesterday, I reinstalled the old >>>>>> air-filter box which has a ram-air feature incorporated into the des= ign. I >>>>>> haven't flown it yet to see if there is any improvement, but I hope = to see >>>>>> at least a little improvement. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On a side note, I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discrepanc= y >>>>>> between the rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop control= ler. I >>>>>> have an optical tach that I will be using to determine which one is = in >>>>>> error. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Stay tuned (no pun intended), >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill Bradburry < >>>>>> bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>> It would seem that if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engin= e >>>>>> rpms would increase, but at some point, you would begin to lose airs= peed and >>>>>> start to slow down because the prop was just not taking a big enough= bite. >>>>>> Conversely, it seems that if you increased the prop pitch, the engin= e rpms >>>>>> would decrease, but the airspeed would increase up to some point and= then >>>>>> after that, an increase in pitch would cause a decrease in airspeed = because >>>>>> you are taking too big a bite and the engine just can not pull it. >>>>>> Somewhere in there is a =93Sweet Spot=94 of propeller rpm that gives= the highest >>>>>> airspeed. Lets say that this question assumes that you are at WOT a= nd 8500 >>>>>> feet, which should give you roughly a 75% power output. Do you know= where >>>>>> that sweet spot is with your propeller? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill B >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.ne= t] >>>>>> *On Behalf Of *Mark Steitle >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:00 PM >>>>>> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >>>>>> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] EM2 Numbers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rotarians, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Things have been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I thought I woul= d >>>>>> post this picture of my EM-2 taken on a trip from Galveston, TX (KGL= S) to >>>>>> Lockhart, TX (50R) yesterday. I was level at 8500msl when taking th= e >>>>>> picture. A/C is a Lancair ES (4-place), engine is a n/a p-ported 20= b. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please disregard the oil temp as the reading on the EM-2 is measured >>>>>> after the first cooler and before the second cooler. Oil temp readi= ngs out >>>>>> of the second cooler (measured at the oil filter pad) track water te= mps >>>>>> within a few degrees. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Leaned to "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down to 1800 rpm and th= e >>>>>> speed drops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to 9.1 gph. You p= ay >>>>>> dearly for that 15 mph but sometimes it is just too much fun to slow= down. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark S. >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: *Mark* >>>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM >>>>>> Subject: >>>>>> To: msteitle@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> The contents of this email are confidential and intended only for th= e >>>>>> named recipients of this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in= error, >>>>>> you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or >>>>>> distribution or the information contained in this e-mail is prohibit= ed. >>>>>> Please notify the sender immediately and then delete/destroy the e-m= ail and >>>>>> any printed copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the ful= lest >>>>>> extent of the law. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > --0015174c43c239cbd20494133981 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed,=A0

I measure the manifold pressure at the unused oil= injection ports in the rotor housings. =A0The EM-2 MAP reads in the upper = 20's while at WOT, so I don't think I have a problem with this. =A0= The MCT was as received, which was set up for Tracy's injectors. =A0I a= ssume they were 460cc, but that's just a guess. =A0I'm running 60# = DEKA IV injectors. =A0Could there possibly be an impedance mismatch between= the two types? =A0

Mark

On Tue, Nov 2, 2= 010 at 9:09 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
Hi Mark,
=A0
Injectors are certainly large enough - six=A0 inj= ectors=20 at 60 lb/hr would give you a max flow rate capacity of around 58 gallons/ho= ur -=20 far more than you are reporting fuel burn wise.
=A0
I guess what I am wondering is how your manifold = pressure=20 is registering at WOT.=A0 The PP as I recall can have a problem providing= =20 reliable/consistent manifold pressure - no good source?=A0 So exactly how i= s=20 your EC2/3 getting its manifold pressure signal ?=A0=A0 What comes to mind= =20 is that if there is a problem getting a good consistent manifold pressure= =20 reading at WOT - could that possibly result in your injectors injecting les= s=20 than you would expect.
=A0
In other words, if manifold pressure was low rela= tive to=20 what you would expect at WOT (near ambient) then turning up the manual mixt= ure=20 control would only provide adjustment against the smaller target pulse dura= tion=20 for that lower Manifold pressure rather than WOT manifold pressure.<= /div>
=A0
Ed
=A0
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterpr= ises=20 LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0

Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:24 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

Hi Mark=20

Are you in a position to confirm your fuel rail pressure?
Fuel injected =3D Pulse width AND injector size AND fuel pressure.
Cheers

Steve Izett


On 02/11/2010, at 4:42 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:

Tracy,
=A0
As I recall the low end numbers are around -50ish.=A0 So there is=20 still=A0room for adjustment.=A0 When running WOT, turning the mixture=20 knob full CW doesn't get the mixture bar to show up on the EM-2 scree= n.=A0=20 I find this odd as I'm running 60# injectors.=A0 I guess that's w= hy the low=20 end numbers are in the -50 range.=A0
=A0
I'll post a question on the Lancair list=A0regarding the most=20 efficient cruise speed for the=A0Lancair ES airframe.
=A0
Mark


=A0
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tracy <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>=20 wrote:
"So, if it is going LOP in = those addresses, which it=20 is,=A0it would explain why power drops off as I open the throttle to=20 WOT."

That's new data to me.=A0 Yes, that would cer= tainly=20 cause a loss of power.=A0=A0=A0 Are you able to compensate by=20 turning up the mixture control?=A0 Are the MAP table values at the low= =20 end above minimum value?=A0 The right thing to do depends on these=20 answers.=A0=A0 If answer is yes to the 2nd one, then you should bump=20 up the value in Mode 3.

The most efficient point on most airfram= es is=20 the point where the induced drag curve crosses the parasitic drag=20 curve.=A0 On RV's that happens at around an indicated airspeed of 1= 35=20 mph.=A0 It will probably be higher than that on a Lancair but I've = never=20 seen the curves on that airplane.

Tracy


On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mark Steitle= <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:
Tracy wrote:
Having said that, I think there is still a good possibility t= hat=20 your drop in power above 6000 is not due to runner length.=A0
=A0
Tracy,
I suspect it could be tuning as I've hit the max=20 adjustment=A0(+127) on the EC-2 MCT for the addresses in the upper 20= "=20 range, so it looks like I need to adjust the injector pulse width and= then=20 start over on the tuning.=A0=A0So, if it is going LOP in those=20 addresses, which it is,=A0it would explain why power drops off as I= =20 open the throttle to WOT.=A0 I'll do more tuning when I get my up= dated=20 EC-2 back.=A0 (will go out in today's mail)=A0
=A0
Where does one find the "most efficient operationg point&qu= ot; for a=20 particular airframe?=A0 Is this the same as=A0LDmax?
=A0
Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tracy <tracy@rotaryaviation.com> wrote:
"The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always occurs a= t the=20 torque peak as that is where the engine takes in the most amount of= air=20 for each revolution of the engine.=A0 The VE is optimum.=A0 In=20 other words it is the most efficient operating point for the=20 engine."=A0

Mark,
=A0That is the point of= =20 minimum pumping losses in the engine, NOT the most overall efficien= t=20 point of operation.=A0=A0=A0 It ignores the many other factors=20 that affect BSFC.=A0=A0 If you look at Mazda's data on BSFC, th= e=20 best point is usually around 5000 rpm.=A0

It also ignores t= he=20 most efficient operating point of your airframe.=A0 If you tune the= =20 engine for a higher rpm torque peak you WILL make more HP,=A0 you= =20 will fly faster but you will burn a lot more fuel.

Having sa= id=20 that, I think there is still a good possibility that your drop in p= ower=20 above 6000 is not due to runner length.

Tracy


On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Mark St= eitle=20 <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:
Al,
=A0
Isn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)/5252.=A0
=A0
I'm more focused on peak Volumetric Efficiency (VE).=A0= =20 According to Fundamentals of Intake System Design,=20 (ACRE)=A0"The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always occur= s at=20 the torque peak as that is where the engine takes in the most amo= unt=20 of air for each revolution of the engine.=A0 The VE is=20 optimum.=A0 In other words it is the most efficient operating poi= nt=20 for the engine."=A0
=A0
So, I will be good=A0tuning for=A0peak torque.=A0 Do you=20 have a dyno chart on your 20B that you will share?=A0 I find it= =20 interesting that your intake runners are only 13".=A0
=A0
Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Al Gi= etzen=20 <ALVentures@cox.net> wrote:

Keep= in=20 mind that the graph is peak torque (T)); not peak HP. =A0The pe= ak=20 HP (which is what you=92re after would be at higher rpm.=A0 HP = =3D T=20 x RPM<= /font>


=A0<= /div>

Al


=A0<= /div>

--= ---Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of stevei@carey.asn.au
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2= 010=20 1:09 AM
To: R= otary=20 motors in aircraft
Subje= ct: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2=20 Numbers


=A0

Hi Mark=20


=A0

I have attac= hed=20 the Leman intake dimensions from Paul L.

Hope this is= =20 helpful. Can't remember whether this measurement was to the= rotor=20 face or manifold face.


=A0

Steve=20 Izett

Perth Wester= n=20 Australia=A0

<im= age001.gif>

On 01/11/201= 0,=20 at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:



Bill,=20


=A0

I understand= =20 the sausage illustration.=A0 But if=A0what you=20 propose=A0were true, then why did Mazda=A0make such a major=20 effort to design and implement=A0the variable intake on their= =20 LeMans 26B p-port motor?=A0 That tells me that=A0runner=20 length=A0does make a significant difference on the p-port=20 motor.=A0 Also, if tuned runners didn't matter for peripher= al=20 ports, then why do they tune the exhaust runners on the 13B'= ;s?=A0=20 Somewhere I have a chart showing the effect of runner length, b= ut=20 I'm not sure that=A0the data=A0is from a=A0p-port=20 motor.


=A0

Mark

On Sun, Oct = 31,=20 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>=20 wrote:

Mark,

I don=92t=20 think that will work with the PP.=A0 You never actually block t= he=20 inlet.=A0 You just cut off the end of the flow of air as the ap= ex=20 flies by and it starts to fill the next chamber.=A0 Think of th= e=20 flow as a long sausage that is going through a propeller made o= f a=20 strand of wire 2 or 3 MM thick and being cut into sections.=A0 = It=20 is never blocked. =A0I doubt that there are any reflections and= =20 if there are, they would be very small and of little benefit to= =20 enhance.


=A0

I think=20 that is why the PP is so much stronger than the side=20 port.


=A0

Bill=20 B


=A0

From: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark=20 Steitle
Sent:= =20 Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 PM

To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft
Subject:= =20 [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers


=A0

=A0

=A0

George,=20


=A0

Sorry for th= e=20 delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar and measure the ru= nner=20 length to be sure.=A0 It is 24" bellmouth to rotor face, 2= "=20 OD.=A0 Exhaust is 2" OD also, running the stock 20b exhaus= t=20 splitters.


=A0

So, my power= =20 seems to peak around 6000 rpm.=A0 What length intake runner=20 length would it take to bring=A0peak power=A0up to around 6500= =20 rpm?=A0


=A0

Mark=A0

On Sat, Oct = 30,=20 2010 at 3:53 PM, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> wrote:

= =A0=A0 Mark,=20

= =A0=A0=A0=20 That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, r= unner=20 length and exhaust header ID=A0size.

= =A0=A0=A0=A0George=20 (down under)=A0


=A0<= /div>

From: Mark Steitle=20

Sent: Satur= day, October 30,=20 2010 7:38 PM

Subject: [= FlyRotary] Re: EM2=20 Numbers


=A0

Bill,=A0=20


=A0

With the=20 current setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm s= till=20 tuning on the upper addresses of the EC-2. =A0My old engine did= =20 best around 6500-6600 running the same prop. =A0So, I feel ther= e=20 is something that isn't quite right on the new P-Port motor= ... maybe=20 intake runners too short, intake or exhaust too restrictive, ti= ming=20 off a bit, etc. =A0It definitely makes more hp than the old mot= or=20 did in the 5000-6000 range, but I feel that it should be produc= ing=20 more hp than I'm seeing in the 6000-7000 range.=20 =A0


=A0

So, things a= re=20 still developing. =A0Yesterday, I reinstalled the old air-filte= r=20 box which has a ram-air feature incorporated into the design.= =20 =A0I haven't flown it yet to see if there is any improvemen= t, but=20 I hope to see at least a little improvement.

<= /div>

=A0

On a side no= te,=20 I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discrepancy between t= he=20 rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop controller. = =A0I=20 have an optical tach that I will be using to determine which on= e is=20 in error. =A0=A0


=A0

Stay tuned (= no=20 pun intended),

Mark<= /font>


=A0

=A0

On Fri, Oct = 29,=20 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>=20 wrote:

Mark,

It would=20 seem that if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engine rp= ms=20 would increase, but at some point, you would begin to lose airs= peed=20 and start to slow down because the prop was just not taking a b= ig=20 enough bite.=A0 Conversely, it seems that if you increased the= =20 prop pitch, the engine rpms would decrease, but the airspeed wo= uld=20 increase up to some point and then after that, an increase in p= itch=20 would cause a decrease in airspeed because you are taking too b= ig a=20 bite and the engine just can not pull it.=A0 Somewhere in there= =20 is a =93Sweet Spot=94 of propeller rpm that gives the highest= =20 airspeed.=A0 Lets say that this question assumes that you are a= t=20 WOT and 8500 feet, which should give you roughly a 75% power=20 output.=A0 Do you know where that sweet spot is with your=20 propeller?


=A0

Bill=20 B


=A0

From: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark=20 Steitle

Sent: Thursday, October 28= ,=20 2010 10:00 PM
To:= =20 Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] EM2=20 Numbers


=A0

Rotarians,


=A0

Things have= =20 been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I thought I would post = this=20 picture of my EM-2 taken on a trip from Galveston, TX (KGLS) to= =20 Lockhart, TX (50R) yesterday. =A0I was level at 8500msl when=20 taking the picture. =A0A/C is a Lancair ES (4-place), engine is= a=20 n/a p-ported 20b. =A0


=A0

Please=20 disregard the oil temp as the reading on the EM-2 is measured a= fter=20 the first cooler and before the second cooler. =A0Oil temp=20 readings out of the second cooler (measured at the oil filter p= ad)=20 track water temps within a few degrees.


=A0

Leaned to=20 "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down to 1800 rpm a= nd the speed=20 drops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to 9.1 gph. =A0You= =20 pay dearly for that 15 mph but sometimes it is just too much fu= n to=20 slow down.


=A0

Mark S.

----------= =20 Forwarded message ----------


From:=20 Mark <msteitle@gmail.com>=
Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010=20 at 8:50 PM
Subject:
To: msteitle@gmail.com






<= br>
Sent=20 from my iPhone


=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

The=20 contents of this email are confidential and intended only for t= he=20 named recipients of this e-mail. If you have received this e-ma= il in=20 error, you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,=20 disclosure or distribution or the information contained in this= =20 e-mail is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and = then=20 delete/destroy the e-mail and any printed copies. All liability= for=20 viruses is excluded to the fullest extent of the=20 law.


=






--0015174c43c239cbd20494133981--