X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma03.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4556062 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:50:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.41; envelope-from=shipchief@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.140]) by imr-ma03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oA55nttd023857 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:49:55 -0400 Received: from core-ddb001b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-ddb001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.52.65]) by mtaomg-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 521FCE000081 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:49:55 -0400 (EDT) References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: My favorite takeaway from the KY flyin: potential efficiency improvement X-AOL-IP: 24.19.204.151 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_8CD4AC468310D24_1114_55CF9_Webmail-m106.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 32843-STANDARD Received: from 24.19.204.151 by Webmail-m106.sysops.aol.com (64.12.224.160) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:49:55 -0400 Message-Id: <8CD4AC466066BDB-1114-2611A@Webmail-m106.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [24.19.204.151] Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:49:55 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:499925088:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338c4cd39b0368a1 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CD4AC468310D24_1114_55CF9_Webmail-m106.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I had an intuitive impression that the injected fuel slows the passage of i= ntake air, so shutting off one injector, preferably the one in the bigger i= ntake port, could increase power by providing more air for combustion. If t= he other injector could flow enough fuel for the required power level? -----Original Message----- From: Steven W. Boese To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 1:37 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: My favorite takeaway from the KY flyin: potential = efficiency improvement Charlie and others, I've attached an EXCEL file which may have answers to the questions Charlie= =20 resented. In particular, the information may be of interest to those tuning their mix= ture=20 orrection tables in the staging region. There is also data that would be o= f=20 nterest to those using fuel flow rate or fuel totalizing instrumentation th= at=20 s based on injector pulse integration. Steve Boese -----Original Message----- rom: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Beha= lf=20 f Charlie England ent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:10 PM o: Rotary motors in aircraft ubject: [FlyRotary] My favorite takeaway from the KY flyin: potential=20 fficiency improvement The thing that made the biggest impression on me wasn't the excellent) SAG research, but a little tidbit shared by Doug during his yno presentation. It, like the SAG question, didn't have a final nswer, but I suspect that it has the potential for improved cruise fficiency. Doug mentioned that they saw the repeatable effect of increased power hen they disabled *either* the leading or trailing injectors. I have my wn idea about why they saw that, but I'm hopeful that there will be ome discussion & eventually, a proven way to increase cruise efficiency. Questions for Doug & Steve: hen this was tested, did measured fuel flow change when the injector air was disabled & rpm went up? id you by any chance try to duplicate the effect while in cruise flight y flying on 1 pair of injectors? As I mentioned to Steve in a hurried conversation Sunday morning, I have suspicion of why it's happening but I'd like to see more research. If he effect turns out to be consistent across multiple installations, here could be an easy efficiency improvement on the table, waiting to e picked up & used. Charlie -- omepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ rchive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.h= tml ----------MB_8CD4AC468310D24_1114_55CF9_Webmail-m106.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I had an intuitive impressi= on that the injected fuel slows the passage of intake air, so shutting off = one injector, preferably the one in the bigger intake port, could increase = power by providing more air for combustion. If the other injector could flo= w enough fuel for the required power level?



= -----Original Message-----
From: Steven W. Boese <SBoese@uwyo.edu>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 1:37 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: My favorite takeaway from the KY flyin: potential = efficiency improvement

Charli=
e and others,

I've attached an EXCEL file which may have answers to the questions Charlie=
=20
presented.

In particular, the information may be of interest to those tuning their mix=
ture=20
correction tables in the staging region.  There is also data that would be =
of=20
interest to those using fuel flow rate or fuel totalizing instrumentation t=
hat=20
is based on injector pulse integration.

Steve Boese



-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf=20
Of Charlie England
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:10 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] My favorite takeaway from the KY flyin: potential=20
efficiency improvement

  The thing that made the biggest impression on me wasn't the
(excellent) SAG research, but a little tidbit shared by Doug during his
dyno presentation. It, like the SAG question, didn't have a final
answer, but I suspect that it has the potential for improved cruise
efficiency.

Doug mentioned that they saw the repeatable effect of increased power
when they disabled *either* the leading or trailing injectors. I have my
own idea about why they saw that, but I'm hopeful that there will be
some discussion & eventually, a proven way to increase cruise efficienc=
y.

Questions for Doug & Steve:
When this was tested, did measured fuel flow change when the injector
pair was disabled & rpm went up?
Did you by any chance try to duplicate the effect while in cruise flight
by flying on 1 pair of injectors?

As I mentioned to Steve in a hurried conversation Sunday morning, I have
a suspicion of why it's happening but I'd like to see more research. If
the effect turns out to be consistent across multiple installations,
there could be an easy efficiency improvement on the table, waiting to
be picked up & used.

Charlie
----------MB_8CD4AC468310D24_1114_55CF9_Webmail-m106.sysops.aol.com--