X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm3.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with SMTP id 4552177 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:22:50 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.91.73; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: from [98.139.91.61] by nm3.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2010 15:22:14 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.22] by tm1.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2010 15:22:14 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Nov 2010 15:22:14 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 595935.71424.bm@omp1022.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 23360 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Nov 2010 15:22:14 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1288711334; bh=OfFoQlbFpJPWAp8esnjGUGJTrFS1rKOQRT78G0Gb4J0=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=yORIaL0Z6h4KjfkUxFTwdHYHajf1btvvPn20Rl7wN6FblSR1nMTse8TEcv+r45NHdahr+HZVWU+ANKtuwnoU4IWiM7s2+IrxgqGgRYbNjdmO1+6Ohy1gFSUWCrdcfIJG0W2c4CglocXQzJeMLLSJZiA8vegH7Z+ZGdd3miUZTas= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=att.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NRVr/oZIDerwNHV1vRgIKThOnDiKeWj7nTfuhaVOojWkyzsJMmFGS59DFMy568idFD7+7hUziXmaWriG1H7SwH/ZhxdRYe+J05kE2w7mcKg2E/+75Lho8irQ5Yis9t6stWbMHxV5Gz0VpVXn+M+HvOXI3dGSfgQM0K6jvrMPv48=; Message-ID: <52395.17703.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: HMRDS1YVM1lJAe.5bAP1a4HY1ledbOuxCjvXtpbyYUg7CIz 56J1qWYTBLtU.qoWj.4lW1WAUQN2fJncfvxNJP8hyb2462BpO4UBcLSujTCc AXLbmu853WRp0AKeAl1H1zTtpZ9zKmsVuGJbT8SvByefaeHq8pD39hSxJU9l OFjyIMYIG179KVy5bFueTaqT48XX35RK_v1adwSp7zUZzR9xmk1VZ3VVbrjm 5AD7NMUjqMQa0QxlEn5NmZpktvtkwx1HJZ4eIR5iBGNNHNJR0cMadFsldEro C3c_LuZwm3r09.GGx Received: from [208.114.43.76] by web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:22:13 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 References: Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Troyer Subject: Re: EM2 Numbers To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2076149623-1288711333=:17703" --0-2076149623-1288711333=:17703 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Manifold=C2=A0pressure pulses (If any) can be damped with a large fuel filt= er =0Ainserted =C2=A0inline=0Ato the "EC2" MP sensor..............=0A=C2=A0= =C2=A0=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)=0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engin= e=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold=0A"TURBONETICS"_T= O4E50 Turbo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Bill Bra= dburry =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Tue, November 2, 2010 10:06:56 AM=0ASubject: [= FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers=0A=0A=0AThe picture of the EM-2 that Mark sent s= hows a manifold pressure of 22.5 at 8500 =0Afeet.=C2=A0 That seems about ri= ght.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t know if there could be pulses that need =0Ato be= damped out with the PP.=0AAlso the fuel pressure graph has 10 bars lit.=C2= =A0 That would be 30 pounds of fuel =0Apressure at 8500 feet.=C2=A0 =0A=0A= =C2=A0=0ABill B=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0AFrom:Ro= tary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = =0AEd Anderson=0ASent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:09 AM=0ATo: Rotary mot= ors in aircraft=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers=0A=C2=A0=0AHi Mark,= =0A=C2=A0=0AInjectors are certainly large enough - six=C2=A0 injectors at 6= 0 lb/hr would give you =0Aa max flow rate capacity of around 58 gallons/hou= r - far more than you are =0Areporting fuel burn wise.=0A=C2=A0=0AI guess w= hat I am wondering is how your manifold pressure is registering at =0AWOT.= =C2=A0 The PP as I recall can have a problem providing reliable/consistent = =0Amanifold pressure - no good source?=C2=A0 So exactly how is your EC2/3 g= etting its =0Amanifold pressure signal ?=C2=A0=C2=A0 What comes to mind is = that if there is a problem =0Agetting a good consistent manifold pressure r= eading at WOT - could that possibly =0Aresult in your injectors injecting l= ess than you would expect.=0A=C2=A0=0AIn other words, if manifold pressure = was low relative to what you would expect =0Aat WOT (near ambient) then tur= ning up the manual mixture control would only =0Aprovide adjustment against= the smaller target pulse duration for that lower =0AManifold pressure rath= er than WOT manifold pressure.=0A=C2=A0=0AEd=0A=C2=A0=0AEdward L. Anderson= =0AAnderson Electronic Enterprises LLC=0A305 Reefton Road=0AWeddington , NC= 28104=0Ahttp://www.andersonee.com=0Ahttp://www.eicommander.com=0A=C2=A0=0A= =C2=A0=0A=C2=A0=0A=C2=A0=0A=C2=A0=0AFrom:stevei@carey.asn.au =0ASent:Tuesda= y, November 02, 2010 8:24 AM=0ATo:Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASubject:[Fly= Rotary] Re: EM2 Numbers=0A=C2=A0=0AHi Mark =0A=C2=A0=0AAre you in a positio= n to confirm your fuel rail pressure?=0AFuel injected =3D Pulse width AND i= njector size AND fuel pressure.=0ACheers=0A=C2=A0=0ASteve Izett=0A=C2=A0=0A= =C2=A0=0AOn 02/11/2010, at 4:42 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:=0A=0A=0ATracy , =0A= =C2=A0=0AAs I recall the low end numbers are around -50ish.=C2=A0 So there = is still=C2=A0room for =0Aadjustment.=C2=A0 When running WOT, turning the m= ixture knob full CW doesn't get the =0Amixture bar to show up on the EM-2 s= creen.=C2=A0 I find this odd as I'm running 60# =0Ainjectors.=C2=A0 I guess= that's why the low end numbers are in the -50 range.=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0A= I'll post a question on the Lancair list=C2=A0regarding the most efficient = cruise =0Aspeed for the=C2=A0Lancair ES airframe.=0A=C2=A0=0AMark=0A=0A=0A= =C2=A0=0AOn Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tracy w= rote:=0A"So, if it is going LOP in those addresses, which it is,=C2=A0it wo= uld explain why =0Apower drops off as I open the throttle to WOT."=0A=0ATha= t's new data to me.=C2=A0 Yes, that would certainly cause a loss of power.= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Are =0Ayou able to compensate by turning up the mixture = control?=C2=A0 Are the MAP table =0Avalues at the low end above minimum val= ue?=C2=A0 The right thing to do depends on =0Athese answers.=C2=A0=C2=A0 If= answer is yes to the 2nd one, then you should bump up the =0Avalue in Mode= 3.=0A=0AThe most efficient point on most airframes is the point where the = induced drag =0Acurve crosses the parasitic drag curve.=C2=A0 On RV's that = happens at around an =0Aindicated airspeed of 135 mph.=C2=A0 It will probab= ly be higher than that on a =0ALancair but I've never seen the curves on th= at airplane. =0A=0A=0ATracy=0A=0A=0AOn Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mark St= eitle wrote:=0ATracywrote:=0AHaving said that, I think= there is still a good possibility that your drop in =0Apower above 6000 is= not due to runner length.=C2=A0=0A=C2=A0=0ATracy ,=0AI suspect it could be= tuning as I've hit the max adjustment=C2=A0(+127) on the EC-2 =0AMCT for t= he addresses in the upper 20" range, so it looks like I need to adjust =0At= he injector pulse width and then start over on the tuning.=C2=A0=C2=A0So, i= f it is going =0ALOP in those addresses, which it is,=C2=A0it would explain= why power drops off as I =0Aopen the throttle to WOT.=C2=A0 I'll do more t= uning when I get my updated EC-2 back.=C2=A0 =0A(will go out in today's mai= l)=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0AWhere does one find the "most efficient operationg = point" for a particular =0Aairframe?=C2=A0 Is this the same as=C2=A0LDmax?= =0A=C2=A0=0AMark=0AOn Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tracy wrote:=0A"The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always occurs at t= he torque peak as that =0Ais where the engine takes in the most amount of a= ir for each revolution of the =0Aengine.=C2=A0 The VE is optimum.=C2=A0 In = other words it is the most efficient operating =0Apoint for the engine."=C2= =A0 =0A=0AMark,=0A=C2=A0That is the point of minimum pumping losses in the = engine, NOT the most overall =0Aefficient point of operation.=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0 It ignores the many other factors that affect =0ABSFC.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I= f you look at Mazda's data on BSFC, the best point is usually around =0A500= 0 rpm.=C2=A0 =0A=0A=0AIt also ignores the most efficient operating point of= your airframe.=C2=A0 If you =0Atune the engine for a higher rpm torque pea= k you WILL make more HP,=C2=A0 you will =0Afly faster but you will burn a l= ot more fuel.=0A=0AHaving said that, I think there is still a good possibil= ity that your drop in =0Apower above 6000 is not due to runner length.=0A= =0ATracy=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:=0AAl, =0A=C2=A0=0AIsn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)= /5252.=C2=A0 =0A=C2=A0=0AI'm more focused on peak Volumetric Efficiency (VE= ).=C2=A0 According to Fundamentals =0Aof Intake System Design, (ACRE)=C2=A0= "The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always =0Aoccurs at the torque peak = as that is where the engine takes in the most amount =0Aof air for each rev= olution of the engine.=C2=A0 The VE is optimum.=C2=A0 In other words it =0A= is the most efficient operating point for the engine."=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0= =0ASo, I will be good=C2=A0tuning for=C2=A0peak torque.=C2=A0 Do you have a= dyno chart on your 20B =0Athat you will share?=C2=A0 I find it interesting= that your intake runners are only =0A13".=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0AMark=0AOn M= on, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Al Gietzen wrote:=0AKeep = in mind that the graph is peak torque (T)); not peak HP. =C2=A0The peak HP = =0A(which is what you=E2=80=99re after would be at higher rpm.=C2=A0 HP =3D= T x RPM=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AAl=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf = =0AOf stevei@carey.asn.au=0ASent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:09 AM=0ATo: R= otary motors in aircraft=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers=0A=0A=C2=A0= =0AHi Mark =0A=0A=C2=A0=0AI have attached the Leman intake dimensions from = Paul L.=0AHope this is helpful. Can't remember whether this measurement was= to the rotor =0Aface or manifold face.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0ASteve Izett=0APerth W= estern Australia =C2=A0=0A=0AOn 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM, Mark = Steitle wrote:=0A=C2=A0=0ABill, =0A=0A=C2=A0=0AI understand the sausage ill= ustration.=C2=A0 But if=C2=A0what you propose=C2=A0were true, then =0Awhy d= id Mazda=C2=A0make such a major effort to design and implement=C2=A0the var= iable =0Aintake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor?=C2=A0 That tells me that= =C2=A0runner length=C2=A0does =0Amake a significant difference on the p-por= t motor.=C2=A0 Also, if tuned runners =0Adidn't matter for peripheral ports= , then why do they tune the exhaust runners on =0Athe 13B's?=C2=A0 Somewher= e I have a chart showing the effect of runner length, but =0AI'm not sure t= hat=C2=A0the data=C2=A0is from a=C2=A0p-port motor.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AMark=0AOn= Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry = =0Awrote:=0AMark,=0AI don=E2=80=99t think that will work with the PP.=C2=A0= You never actually block the inlet.=C2=A0 =0AYou just cut off the end of t= he flow of air as the apex flies by and it starts =0Ato fill the next chamb= er.=C2=A0 Think of the flow as a long sausage that is going =0Athrough a pr= opeller made of a strand of wire 2 or 3 MM thick and being cut into =0Asect= ions.=C2=A0 It is never blocked. =C2=A0I doubt that there are any reflectio= ns and if =0Athere are, they would be very small and of little benefit to e= nhance.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AI think that is why the PP is so much stronger than t= he side port.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0ABill B=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A_______________________= _________=0A=0AFrom:Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironli= ne.net] On Behalf Of =0AMark Steitle=0ASent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 = PM =0A=0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbe= rs=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AGeorge, =0A=0A=C2=A0=0ASorry for t= he delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar and measure the =0Arunner l= ength to be sure.=C2=A0 It is 24" bellmouth to rotor face, 2" OD.=C2=A0 Exh= aust is =0A2" OD also, running the stock 20b exhaust splitters.=0A=0A=C2=A0= =0ASo, my power seems to peak around 6000 rpm.=C2=A0 What length intake run= ner length =0Awould it take to bring=C2=A0peak power=C2=A0up to around 6500= rpm?=C2=A0 =0A=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AMark=C2=A0 =0AOn Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM= , George Lendich wrote:=0A=C2=A0=C2=A0 Mark, =0A=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, r= unner length and =0Aexhaust header ID=C2=A0size.=0A=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= George (down under)=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AFrom:Mark Steitle =0ASent:Saturday,= October 30, 2010 7:38 PM=0ATo:Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASubject:[FlyRot= ary] Re: EM2 Numbers=0A=0A=C2=A0=0ABill,=C2=A0 =0A=0A=C2=A0=0AWith the curr= ent setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm still tuning =0Aon th= e upper addresses of the EC-2. =C2=A0My old engine did best around 6500-660= 0 =0Arunning the same prop. =C2=A0So, I feel there is something that isn't = quite right on =0Athe new P-Port motor... maybe intake runners too short, i= ntake or exhaust too =0Arestrictive, timing off a bit, etc. =C2=A0It defini= tely makes more hp than the old =0Amotor did in the 5000-6000 range, but I = feel that it should be producing more hp =0Athan I'm seeing in the 6000-700= 0 range. =C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0ASo, things are still developing. =C2=A0Yester= day, I reinstalled the old air-filter =0Abox which has a ram-air feature in= corporated into the design. =C2=A0I haven't flown =0Ait yet to see if there= is any improvement, but I hope to see at least a little =0Aimprovement.=0A= =0A=C2=A0=0AOn a side note, I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discr= epancy between =0Athe rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop cont= roller. =C2=A0I have an =0Aoptical tach that I will be using to determine w= hich one is in error. =C2=A0=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AStay tuned (no pun intende= d),=0AMark=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AOn Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill = Bradburry =0Awrote:=0AMark,=0AIt would seem that= if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engine rpms would =0Aincrease,= but at some point, you would begin to lose airspeed and start to slow =0Ad= own because the prop was just not taking a big enough bite.=C2=A0 Conversel= y, it =0Aseems that if you increased the prop pitch, the engine rpms would = decrease, but =0Athe airspeed would increase up to some point and then afte= r that, an increase in =0Apitch would cause a decrease in airspeed because = you are taking too big a bite =0Aand the engine just can not pull it.=C2=A0= Somewhere in there is a =E2=80=9CSweet Spot=E2=80=9D of =0Apropeller rpm t= hat gives the highest airspeed.=C2=A0 Lets say that this question =0Aassume= s that you are at WOT and 8500 feet, which should give you roughly a 75% = =0Apower output.=C2=A0 Do you know where that sweet spot is with your prope= ller?=0A=0A=C2=A0=0ABill B=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A_______________________________= _=0A=0AFrom:Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of =0AMark Steitle=0A=0ASent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:00 PM= =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] EM2 Numbers=0A=0A= =C2=A0=0ARotarians,=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AThings have been a bit quiet on the list = lately, so I thought I would post this =0Apicture of my EM-2 taken on a tri= p from Galveston , TX (KGLS) to Lockhart , TX =0A(50R) yesterday. =C2=A0I w= as level at 8500msl when taking the picture. =C2=A0A/C is a =0ALancair ES (= 4-place), engine is a n/a p-ported 20b. =C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0APlease disrega= rd the oil temp as the reading on the EM-2 is measured after the =0Afirst c= ooler and before the second cooler. =C2=A0Oil temp readings out of the seco= nd =0Acooler (measured at the oil filter pad) track water temps within a fe= w degrees.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0ALeaned to "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down = to 1800 rpm and the speed =0Adrops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to= 9.1 gph. =C2=A0You pay dearly for that =0A15 mph but sometimes it is just = too much fun to slow down.=0A=0A=C2=A0=0AMark S.=0A---------- Forwarded mes= sage ----------=0A=0AFrom: Mark =0ADate: Thu, Oct 28, 2= 010 at 8:50 PM=0ASubject: =0ATo: msteitle@gmail.com=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A= =0ASent from my iPhone=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A= =0A=C2=A0=0A=0A=C2=A0=0A=0A________________________________=0A=0AThe conten= ts of this email are confidential and intended only for the named =0Arecipi= ents of this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are =0A= hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution or t= he =0Ainformation contained in this e-mail is prohibited. Please notify the= sender =0Aimmediately and then delete/destroy the e-mail and any printed c= opies. All =0Aliability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent of th= e law. --0-2076149623-1288711333=:17703 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
Manifold pressure pulses (If any) can be dampe= d with a large fuel filter inserted  inline
=0A
to the "EC2" = MP sensor..............
=0A
  
=0A

Kelly Troyer"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually= )

=0A

"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"M= ISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

=0A

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=0A
=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: Bill Bradburry &= lt;bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
To:= Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>Sent: Tue, November 2, 20= 10 10:06:56 AM
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=0A=0A=0A
=0A

The picture of the EM-2 that Mark sent sho= ws a manifold pressure of 22.5 at 8500 feet.  That seems about right.&= nbsp; I don=E2=80=99t know if there could be pulses that need to be damped = out with the PP.

=0A

Also the fuel pressure graph has 10 bars lit.  That woul= d be 30 pounds of fuel pressure at 8500 feet. 

=0A 

= =0A

Bill B=

=0A

 

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

From:<= /SPAN> Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancai= ronline.net] On Behalf Of E= d Anderson
Sent: Tuesday= , November 02, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
= Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=0A<= P class=3DMsoNormal> 

=0A
=0A

Hi Mark,

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Injectors are certa= inly large enough - six  injectors at 60 lb/hr would give you a max fl= ow rate capacity of around 58 gallons/hour - far more than you are reportin= g fuel burn wise.

=0A
=0A

 = ;

=0A
=0A

I guess what = I am wondering is how your manifold pressure is registering at WOT.  T= he 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 - c= ould that possibly result in your injectors injecting less than you would e= xpect.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In other words, if manif= old 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 for that lower Manifold pressure = rather than WOT manifold pressure.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

<= FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial>Ed

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Edward L. Anderson
An= derson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington , NC 28= 104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com

=0A
=0A

 

=0A=0A

 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

 =

=0A
=0A
=0A

&nb= sp;

=0A
=0A=0A
=0A

Sent: Tuesday, Novem= ber 02, 2010 8:24 AM

=0A=0A
=0A

Subject:= [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=0A
=0A

 

= =0A

Hi Mark

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Are you in a = position to confirm your fuel rail pressure?

=0A=0A

Fuel injected =3D Pulse width AND injector size AND f= uel pressure.

=0A
=0A

Cheers

=0A
=0A

 

<= /DIV>=0A
=0A

Steve Izett

=0A=0A

 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A
=0A

On 02/1= 1/2010, at 4:42 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:

=0A



=0A
=0A

Tracy ,

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

As I recall the low end numbers are ar= ound -50ish.  So there is still room for adjustment.  When r= unning 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# injec= tors.  I guess that's why the low end numbers are in the -50 range.&nb= sp;

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

I'll post a question on the Lancai= r list regarding the most efficient cruise speed for the Lancair = ES airframe.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Mark

=0A
=0A

<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">

 

=0A=0A

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tracy <tracy@rotaryaviation.com> wrote:

=0A

"So, if it is going LOP in those addresses, which it is,&nbs= p;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 tur= ning up the mixture control?  Are the MAP table values at the low end = above minimum value?  The right thing to do depends on these answers.&= nbsp;  If answer is yes to the 2nd one, then you should bump up the va= lue in Mode 3.

The most efficient point on most airframes is the poi= nt where the induced drag curve crosses the parasitic drag curve.  On = RV's that happens at around an indicated airspeed of 135 mph.  It will= probably be higher than that on a Lancair but I've never seen the curves o= n that airplane.

Tracy

=0A
=0A

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 = at 3:34 PM, Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail= .com> wrote:

=0A
=0A

Tracy= wrote:

=0A
=0A

Having said that, I think there is still a good possibility that you= r drop in power above 6000 is not due to runner length.&n= bsp;

=0A
=0A

 

= =0A
=0A

Tracy ,

=0A
=0A

I suspect it could be tuning as I've hit the max adjustment&n= bsp;(+127) on the EC-2 MCT for the addresses in the upper 20" range, so it = looks like I need 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 why power drops off as I open the throttle to WO= T.  I'll do more tuning when I get my updated EC-2 back.  (will g= o out in today's mail) 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Where doe= s one find the "most efficient operationg point" for a particular airframe?=   Is this the same as LDmax?

=0A
=0A 

=0A
=0A

Mark

=0A
=0A

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tracy <tracy@rotaryaviation.com> wrote:

=0A
=0A

"The lowest fuel burn per HP generated always occurs at the tor= que peak as that is where the engine takes in the most amount of air for ea= ch revolution of the engine.  The VE is optimum.  In other words = it is the most efficient operating point for the engine." 

=0A

Mark, That is the point of minimum pumping losses in the engine, NOT the = most overall efficient point of operation.    It ignores the= many other factors that affect BSFC.   If you look at Mazda's da= ta on BSFC, the best point is usually around 5000 rpm. 

It als= o 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 t= hat, I think there is still a good possibility that your drop in power abov= e 6000 is not due to runner length.

Tracy


<= /P>=0A

=0A

= On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Mark Steit= le <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:

=0A
=0A

Al,

=0A=
=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A=

Isn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)/5252. 

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A
=0A

I'm more focused on peak Volum= etric Efficiency (VE).  According to Fundamentals of Intake System Design, (ACRE) "The lowe= st fuel burn per HP generated always occurs at the torque peak as that is w= here the engine takes in the most amount of air for each revolution of the = engine.  The VE is optimum.  In other words it is the most effici= ent operating point for the engine." 

=0A
= =0A

 

=0A
=0A
= =0A

So, I will be good tuning for peak torque.&n= bsp; Do you have a dyno chart on your 20B that you will share?  I find= it interesting that your intake runners are only 13".  =

=0A
=0A

 

= =0A
=0A

Mark

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

On Mon, Nov 1, 201= 0 at 11:10 AM, Al Gietzen <ALVentures@co= x.net> wrote:

=0A
=0A
=0A

Keep = in mind that the graph is peak torque (T)); not peak HP.  The peak HP = (which is what you=E2=80=99re after would be at higher rpm.  HP =3D T = x RPM

=0A
=0A


 

=0A

Al

=0A
=0A


 

=0A

-----Origin= al Message-----
From: Ro= tary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] stevei@carey.as= n.au
Sent: Monday, N= ovember 01, 2010 1:09 AM
To:= Rotary motors in aircraft
Subj= ect: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=0A
=0A


 

=0A

Hi Mark

=0A
=0A
=0A

<= FONT size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman">
=  

=0A
=0A

I have attached the Leman intake dimensions from Paul = L.

=0A
=0A

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

=0A
=0A=0A


 

=0A
=0A

Steve Izett

=0A
=0A

Perth Western Australia  

= =0A
=0A

<image001.gif&= gt;

=0A
=0A
=0A

On 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:

=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Bill,

=0A
=0A
=0A

<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 

=0A<= DIV>=0A

I understand the saus= age illustration.  But if what you propose were true, then w= hy did Mazda make such a major effort to design and implement the= variable intake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor?  That tells me that=  runner length does make a significant difference on the p-port m= otor.  Also, if tuned runners didn't matter for peripheral ports, then= why do they tune the exhaust runners on the 13B's?  Somewhere I have = a chart showing the effect of runner length, but I'm not sure that the= data is from a p-port motor.

=0A
=0A<= DIV style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">=0A


 

=0A
=0A

Mark

=0A
=0A

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

=0A
=0A
=0A

Mark,<= /FONT>

=0A

I don=E2=80=99t think that will work with the PP. = You never actually block 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.&nb= sp; Think of the flow as a long sausage that is going through a propeller m= ade of a strand of wire 2 or 3 MM thick and being cut into sections.  = It is never blocked.  I doubt that there are any reflections and if th= ere are, they would be very small and of little benefit to enhance.<= /FONT>

=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A

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

=0A
=0A
=0A


 <= /P>

=0A

Bill B

=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 PM <= /P>=0A

=0A
=0A


To: Rotary motors i= n aircraft
Subject: [Fly= Rotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A<= DIV style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">=0A


 

=0A
=0A

=0A


 

=0A
=0A

Sorry for the= delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar and measure 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.

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A

= So, my power seems to peak around 6000 rpm.=   What length intake runner length would it take to bring peak po= wer up to around 6500 rpm? 

=0A
=0A=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A

Mark 

=0A=
=0A

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

=0A
=0A
=0A

   Mark,

=0A
=0A

    That's interesting; can you tell me what i= s your PP size, runner length and exhaust header ID size.

=0A
=0A

    George (down under) 

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A
= =0A

From: Mark Steitle

=0A
=0A

Sent: Saturday, October 30= , 2010 7:38 PM

=0A=0A
=0A

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=0A
= =0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A

Bill, 

=0A
=0A
= =0A
=0A


 =

=0A
=0A

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 di= d best around 6500-6600 running the same prop.  So, I feel there is so= mething that isn't quite right on the new P-Port motor... maybe intake runn= ers too short, intake or exhaust too restrictive, timing off a bit, etc. &n= bsp;It definitely makes more hp than the old motor did in the 5000-6000 ran= ge, but I feel that it should be producing more hp than I'm seeing in the 6= 000-7000 range.  

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A

S= o, things are still developing.  Yesterday, I reinstalled the old air-= filter box which has a ram-air feature incorporated into the design.  = I haven't flown it yet to see if there is any improvement, but I hope to se= e at least a little improvement.

=0A
=0A
=0A=
=0A


 

=0A
=0A

On a side note, I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discrep= ancy between the rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop controlle= r.  I have an optical tach that I will be using to determine which one= is in error.   

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A

Stay tuned (no pun intended),

=0A
=0A

Mark

=0A
= =0A
=0A
=0A


 = ;

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A


 = ;

=0A
=0A

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

=0A
=0A
=0A

Mark,

=0AIt would seem that if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engine r= pms would increase, but at some point, you would begin to lose airspeed 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 b= ecause you are taking too big a bite and the engine just can not pull it.&n= bsp; Somewhere in there is a =E2=80=9CSweet Spot=E2=80=9D of propeller rpm = that gives the highest airspeed.  Lets say that this question assumes = that you are at WOT and 8500 feet, which should give you roughly a 75% powe= r output.  Do you know where that sweet spot is with your propeller?

=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A

Bill B

=0A
=0A
=0A

<= FONT size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman">
=  

=0A
=0A
=0A
= =0A
=0A
= =0A

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net<= /A>] On Behalf Of Mark Stei= tle

=0A
=0A


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

=0A
=0A
=0A


&nb= sp;

=0A

Rotarians,

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A
=0A

T= hings have been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I thought I would post t= his picture of my EM-2 taken on a trip from Galveston , TX (KGLS) to Lockha= rt , TX (50R) yesterday.  I was level at 8500msl when taking the pictu= re.  A/C is a Lancair ES (4-place), engine is a n/a p-ported 20b. &nbs= p;

=0A
=0A
=0A
= =0A


 

=0A
= =0A

Please disregard the oil = temp as the reading on the EM-2 is measured after the first cooler and befo= re the second cooler.  Oil temp readings out of the second cooler (mea= sured at the oil filter pad) track water temps within a few degrees.=

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
 

=0A
=0ALeaned to "Economy Cruise" and= dial the prop down to 1800 rpm and the speed drops down about 15 mph and f= uel burn drops to 9.1 gph.  You pay dearly for that 15 mph but sometim= es it is just too much fun to slow down.

=0A
=0A=
=0A
=0A


 

=0A=0A
=0A
=0A

=
 

=0A
=0A
=0A=


 

=0A
=0A
=0A


 

= =0A
=0A


 =

=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A


 

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

The contents of this email are confidential and = intended only for the 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 p= rohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and then delete/destroy the= e-mail and any printed copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to th= e fullest extent of the law.

=0A

 

=0A

&n= bsp;

=0A

 

=0A

 

=0A

 

=0A

 

--0-2076149623-1288711333=:17703--