X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-db01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.95] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4552759 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:07:01 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.95; envelope-from=shipchief@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.200]) by imr-db01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oA2M6EDn002797 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:06:14 -0400 Received: from core-ddb004a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-ddb004.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.52.77]) by mtaomg-db02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 83465E00009C for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:06:13 -0400 (EDT) References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers X-AOL-IP: 198.238.213.154 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: shipchief@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CD48F14BFCBC05_DF0_AB4C_webmail-d016.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 32823-STANDARD Received: from 198.238.213.154 by webmail-d016.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.31) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:06:12 -0400 Message-Id: <8CD48F14BCF81E5-DF0-4653@webmail-d016.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [198.238.213.154] Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:06:13 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:515415232:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33c84cd08b555ccd This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CD48F14BFCBC05_DF0_AB4C_webmail-d016.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I'm wondering if you are getting an incorrect manifold pressure to the EC-2= due to oil in the sense lines? I had this problem. I had to change the location of the manifold pressure t= ap, which was on the floor of the intake plenum. I built little tube extens= ions to sample the air from the middle of the plenum to prevent any wet sur= face flow from drooling into the Manifold pressure sense lines. I didn't ha= ve an oil restrictor to the turbo bearing, so it leaked oil into the compre= ssor side, hence my problem. But if you are tapping manifold pressure off the rotor housing, the tip sea= l is probably dragging oil with it, and some of that is ending up in your s= ense line? You might consider a high point pulse attenuator and collection = chamber that could hold any oil, and be check during pre flight? A clear fu= el filter?? When I pulled my sense line off the EC-2, the oil drooled out into the bagg= age compartment. The engine ran much better after I fixed it. -----Original Message----- From: Rino To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Tue, Nov 2, 2010 8:57 am Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers I use a small manifold to smooth out the induction pulses, before that the = pulses would affect the pressure reading and probably the computer also. =20 Rino ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Steitle=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:03 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers Ed, =20 I measure the manifold pressure at the unused oil injection ports in the ro= tor 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 gue= ss. I'm running 60# DEKA IV injectors. Could there possibly be an impedan= ce mismatch between the two types? =20 Mark On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Ed Anderson wro= te: Hi Mark, =20 Injectors are certainly large enough - six injectors at 60 lb/hr would giv= e you a max flow rate capacity of around 58 gallons/hour - far more than yo= u are reporting fuel burn wise. =20 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 i= ts manifold pressure signal ? What comes to mind is that if there is a pr= oblem getting a good consistent manifold pressure reading at WOT - could th= at possibly result in your injectors injecting less than you would expect. =20 In other words, if manifold pressure was low relative to what you would exp= ect 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. =20 Ed =20 Edward L. Anderson Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC 305 Reefton Road Weddington, NC 28104 http://www.andersonee.com http://www.eicommander.com =20 =20 =20 =20 From: stevei@carey.asn.au=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:24 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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,=20 =20 As I recall the low end numbers are around -50ish. So there is still room = 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. =20 =20 I'll post a question on the Lancair list regarding the most efficient cruis= e speed for the Lancair ES airframe. =20 Mark =20 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 w= hy 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 thing to do de= pends 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 induced d= rag 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 on that airplane.=20 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.=20 =20 Tracy, I suspect it could be tuning as I've hit the max adjustment (+127) on the E= C-2 MCT for the addresses in the upper 20" range, so it looks like I need t= o adjust the injector pulse width and then start over on the tuning. So, i= f it is going LOP in those addresses, which it is, it would explain why pow= er drops off as I open the throttle to WOT. I'll do more tuning when I get= my updated EC-2 back. (will go out in today's mail) =20 =20 Where does one find the "most efficient operationg point" for a particular = airframe? Is this the same as LDmax? =20 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 each revolutio= n of the engine. The VE is optimum. In other words it is the most efficie= nt operating point for the engine." =20 Mark, That is the point of minimum pumping losses in the engine, NOT the most ov= erall efficient point of operation. It ignores the many other factors th= at affect BSFC. If you look at Mazda's data on BSFC, the best point is us= ually around 5000 rpm. =20 It also ignores the most efficient operating point of your airframe. If yo= u 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 wrote: Al,=20 =20 Isn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)/5252. =20 =20 I'm more focused on peak Volumetric Efficiency (VE). According to Fundamen= tals of Intake System Design, (ACRE) "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 each revolution of the engine. The VE is optimum. = In other words it is the most efficient operating point for the engine." = =20 =20 So, I will be good tuning for peak torque. Do you have a dyno chart on you= r 20B that you will share? I find it interesting that your intake runners = are only 13". =20 =20 Mark On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Al Gietzen wrote: 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 =20 Al =20 -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Beh= alf Of stevei@carey.asn.au Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:09 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers =20 Hi Mark=20 =20 I have attached the Leman intake dimensions from Paul L. Hope this is helpful. Can't remember whether this measurement was to the ro= tor face or manifold face. =20 Steve Izett Perth Western Australia=20 On 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: Bill,=20 =20 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 var= iable intake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor? That tells me that runner l= ength does make a significant difference on the p-port motor. Also, if tun= ed runners didn't matter for peripheral ports, then why do they tune the ex= haust 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. =20 Mark On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: Mark, 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. Think of the flow as a long sau= sage that is going through a propeller made of a strand of wire 2 or 3 MM t= hick and being cut into sections. It is never blocked. I doubt that there= are any reflections and if there are, they would be very small and of litt= le benefit to enhance. =20 I think that is why the PP is so much stronger than the side port. =20 Bill B =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Beh= alf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 PM=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers =20 =20 =20 George,=20 =20 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. Exhau= st is 2" OD also, running the stock 20b exhaust splitters. =20 So, my power seems to peak around 6000 rpm. What length intake runner leng= th would it take to bring peak power up to around 6500 rpm? =20 =20 Mark =20 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, George Lendich wrot= e: Mark,=20 That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, runner length= and exhaust header ID size. George (down under)=20 =20 From: Mark Steitle=20 Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 7:38 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers =20 Bill, =20 =20 With the current setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm still tu= ning on the upper addresses of the EC-2. My old engine did best around 650= 0-6600 running the same prop. So, I feel there is something that isn't qui= te right on the new P-Port motor... maybe intake runners too short, intake = or exhaust too restrictive, timing off a bit, etc. It definitely makes mor= e hp than the old motor did in the 5000-6000 range, but I feel that it shou= ld be producing more hp than I'm seeing in the 6000-7000 range. =20 =20 So, things are still developing. Yesterday, I reinstalled the old air-filt= er 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 see at leas= t a little improvement. =20 On a side note, I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discrepancy betwe= en the rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop controller. I have= an optical tach that I will be using to determine which one is in error. = =20 =20 Stay tuned (no pun intended), Mark =20 =20 On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: Mark, It would seem that if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engine rpms = would increase, but at some point, you would begin to lose airspeed and sta= rt to slow down because the prop was just not taking a big enough bite. Co= nversely, it seems that if you increased the prop pitch, the engine rpms wo= uld decrease, but the airspeed would increase up to some point and then aft= er that, an increase in pitch would cause a decrease in airspeed because yo= u are taking too big a bite and the engine just can not pull it. 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% power output. Do you k= now where that sweet spot is with your propeller? =20 Bill B =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Beh= alf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:00 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] EM2 Numbers =20 Rotarians, =20 Things have been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I thought I would post = this 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 picture. A= /C is a Lancair ES (4-place), engine is a n/a p-ported 20b. =20 =20 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 readings out of th= e second cooler (measured at the oil filter pad) track water temps within a= few degrees. =20 Leaned to "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down to 1800 rpm and the speed= drops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to 9.1 gph. You pay dearly fo= r that 15 mph but sometimes it is just too much fun to slow down. =20 Mark S. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM Subject:=20 To: msteitle@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 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 prohibited. Please notify th= e sender immediately and then delete/destroy the e-mail and any printed cop= ies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent of the law= . ----------MB_8CD48F14BFCBC05_DF0_AB4C_webmail-d016.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
I'm wondering if you are getting an incorrect manifold pressure to the= EC-2 due to oil in the sense lines?
I had this problem. I had to change the location of the manifold press= ure tap, which was on the floor of the intake plenum. I built little tube e= xtensions to sample the air from the middle of the plenum to prevent any we= t surface flow from drooling into the Manifold pressure sense lines. I didn= 't have an oil restrictor to the turbo bearing, so it leaked oil into the c= ompressor side, hence my problem.
But if you are tapping manifold pressure off the rotor housing, t= he tip seal is probably dragging oil with it, and some of that is ending up= in your sense line? You might consider a high point pulse attenuator and c= ollection chamber that could hold any oil, and be check during pre flight?&= nbsp;A clear fuel filter??
When I pulled my sense line off the EC-2, the oil drooled out into the= baggage compartment. The engine ran much better after I fixed it.



= -----Original Message-----
From: Rino <lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, Nov 2, 2010 8:57 am
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

I use a small manifold to smooth out the i= nduction pulses, before that the pulses would affect the pressure reading a= nd probably the computer also.
 
Rino
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:= 03 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers=

Ed, =20

I measure the manifold pressure at the unused oil injection ports in t= he 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, b= ut that's just a guess.  I'm running 60# DEKA IV injectors.  Coul= d there possibly be an impedance mismatch between the two types?  

Mark

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@caroli= na.rr.com> wrote:
Hi Mark,
 
Injectors are certainly large enough - six  in= jectors at 60 lb/hr would give you a max flow rate capacity of around 58 ga= llons/hour - far more than you are reporting fuel burn wise.
 
I guess what I am wondering is how your manifold pr= essure is registering at WOT.  The PP as I recall can have a problem p= roviding reliable/consistent manifold pressure - no good source?  So e= xactly 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 - could that possibly result in your inje= ctors injecting less than you would expect.
 
In other words, if manifold pressure was low relati= ve to what you would expect at WOT (near ambient) then turning up the manua= l mixture control would only provide adjustment against the smaller target = pulse duration for that lower Manifold pressure rather than WOT manifold pr= essure.
 
Ed
 
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersone= e.com
http://www.eicomman= der.com
 
 
 
 

From: stevei@carey.asn.au
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,
 
As I recall the low end numbers are around -50ish.  So there is s= till room 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.&nbs= p; I find this odd as I'm running 60# injectors.  I guess that's why t= he low end numbers are in the -50 range. 
 
I'll post a question on the Lancair list regarding the most effic= ient cruise speed for the Lancair ES airframe.
 
Mark


 
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tracy <tracy@rotaryaviation.co= m> wrote:
"So, if it is going LOP in thos= e addresses, which it is, it would explain why power drops off as I op= en the throttle to WOT."

That's new data to me.  Yes, that would certainly cause a loss of powe= r.    Are you able to compensate by turning up the mixture c= ontrol?  Are the MAP table values at the low end above minimum value?&= nbsp; The right thing 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 induced d= rag curve crosses the parasitic drag curve.  On RV's that happens at a= round an indicated airspeed of 135 mph.  It will probably be higher th= an 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 <msteitle@gmail.com= > wrote:
Tracy wrote:
Having said that, I think there is still a good possibility that yo= ur 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 the EC-2 MCT for the addresses in the upper 20" range, so it looks lik= e I need to adjust the injector pulse width and then start over on the tuni= ng.  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.  = I'll do more tuning when 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 partic= ular airframe?  Is this the same as LDmax?
 
Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tracy <tracy@rotaryaviation.co= m> 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 each r= evolution of the engine.  The VE is optimum.  In other words it i= s the 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 m= any other factors that affect BSFC.   If you look at Mazda's data= on BSFC, the best point 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,&= nbsp; 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 <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:
Al,
 
Isn't the formula HP=3D (torque x rpm)/5252. 
 
I'm more focused on peak Volumetric Efficiency (VE).  According t= o Fundamentals of Intake System Design, (ACRE) "The lowest fuel= burn per HP generated always occurs at the torque peak as that is where th= e 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 efficient ope= rating 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 intake runners are only 13". 
 
Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Al Gietzen <ALVentures@cox.net&= gt; wrote:
Keep in mind that= the graph is peak torque (T)); not peak HP.  The peak HP (which is wh= at you=E2=80=99re after would be at higher rpm.  HP =3D T x RPM

 
Al<= /div>

 
-----Original Me= ssage-----
From: Rotary motors in airc= raft [mailto:flyrotary@lanca= ironline.net] On Behalf Of = stevei@carey.asn.au
Sent: Monday, November 01, = 2010 1:09 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircra= ft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM= 2 Numbers
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Hi Mark
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
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.=
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Steve Izett<= /div>
Perth Western Australia&nb= sp;
<image001.gif>=
On 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM,= Mark Steitle wrote:


Bill,
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
I understand the sausage i= llustration.  But if what you propose were true, then why di= d Mazda make such a major effort to design and implement the vari= able intake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor?  That tells me that = ;runner length does make a significant difference on the p-port motor.=   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 cha= rt showing the effect of runner length, but I'm not sure that the data=  is from a p-port motor.
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Mark
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:= 27 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbrad= burry@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Mark,
I don=E2=80=99t think that will work with the PP.  You never a= ctually 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.  Think of= the flow as a long sausage that is going through a propeller made of a str= and 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 there are, the= y would be very small and of little benefit to enhance.
=
 
I think that is why the PP is so much stronger than the side port.<= /SPAN>
=
 
Bill B
=
 
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]= On Behalf Of Mark Steitle<= br> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2= 010 8:01 PM

To: Rotary motors in aircra= ft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM= 2 Numbers
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
George,
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Sorry for the delayed repl= y, but I had to go to the hangar and measure the runner length to be sure.&= nbsp; It is 24" bellmouth to rotor face, 2" OD.  Exhaust is 2" OD also= , running the stock 20b exhaust splitters.
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
So, my power seems to peak= around 6000 rpm.  What length intake runner length would it take to b= ring peak power up to around 6500 rpm? 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Mark&= nbsp;
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:= 53 PM, George Lendich <lendich@a= anet.com.au> wrote:
   M= ark,
  &n= bsp; That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, runner lengt= h and exhaust header ID size.
  &n= bsp; George (down under) 

 
From: Mark Steitle
Sent: Saturday, Octo= ber 30, 2010 7:38 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary]= Re: EM2 Numbers
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Bill,  =
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
With the current setup, it= appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm still tuning on the upper addresse= s of the EC-2.  My old engine did best around 6500-6600 running the sa= me prop.  So, I feel there is something that isn't quite right on the = new P-Port motor... maybe intake runners too short, intake or exhaust too r= estrictive, timing off a bit, etc.  It definitely makes more hp than t= he old motor did in the 5000-6000 range, but I feel that it should be produ= cing more hp than I'm seeing in the 6000-7000 range.  
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
So, things are still devel= oping.  Yesterday, I reinstalled the old air-filter box which has a ra= m-air feature incorporated into the design.  I haven't flown it yet to= see if there is any improvement, but I hope to see at least a little impro= vement.
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
On a side note, I have det= ermined that there is a 250 rpm discrepancy between the rpm readout of the = EM-2 and that of the M/T prop controller.  I have an optical tach that= I will be using to determine which one is in error.   
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Stay tuned (no pun intende= d),
Mark
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
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 engi= ne rpms 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 b= ite.  Conversely, it seems that if you increased the prop pitch, the e= ngine 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 airspe= ed because you are taking too big a bite and the engine just can not pull i= t.  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 assu= mes that you are at WOT and 8500 feet, which should give you roughly a 75% = power output.  Do you know where that sweet spot is with your propelle= r?
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Bill B
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]= On Behalf Of Mark Steitle<= /SPAN>

Sent: Thursday, October 28,= 2010 10:00 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircra= ft
Subject: [FlyRotary] EM2 Nu= mbers
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Rotarians,
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Things have been a bit qui= et on the list lately, so I thought I would post this picture of my EM-2 ta= ken on a trip from Galveston, TX (KGLS) to Lockhart, TX (50R) yesterday. &n= bsp;I was level at 8500msl when taking the picture.  A/C is a Lancair = ES (4-place), engine is a n/a p-ported 20b.  
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Please disregard the oil t= emp as the reading on the EM-2 is measured after the first cooler and befor= e the second cooler.  Oil temp readings out of the second cooler (meas= ured at the oil filter pad) track water temps within a few degrees.<= /FONT>
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Leaned to "Economy Cruise"= and dial the prop down to 1800 rpm and the speed drops down about 15 mph a= nd fuel burn drops to 9.1 gph.  You pay dearly for that 15 mph but som= etimes it is just too much fun to slow down.
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
Mark = S.
---------- Forwarded messa= ge ----------

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








Sent from my iPhone
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
 
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 er= ror, you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or dist= ribution or the information contained in this e-mail is prohibited. Please = notify the sender immediately and then delete/destroy the e-mail and any pr= inted copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent o= f the law.







----------MB_8CD48F14BFCBC05_DF0_AB4C_webmail-d016.sysops.aol.com--