Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <5FDC9D9923E640EDBDC09267A8EC1C87@EdPC>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-4555576@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4555576@logan.com>
Subject: Double Pulse width and staging BOG was Re: My favorite takeaway from the KY flyin: potential efficiency improvement
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:23:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal

Have not had time to thoroughly digest all this excellent data, Steve.

 However, one comment you made, I believe I can support with my experience.

Most of  my early time with the Ec2 I always had a bit of a bog during 
staging (I only notice it on the ground, but then I am seldom below my 
staging point in the air) . In trying to determine what was causing this 
bog,  I noticed while viewing the Air/Fuel Ratio that it dropped off the 
lean edge of the scale when I staged.

Once I had my EFISM so that I could see precisely where this "leaning" was 
happening, I started to enrich those bins (the ones my EC jumps to 
immediately after staging).  The more I enriched the fuel MAP in that area, 
the less the staging bog became.  I finally enriched the approx 3-4 bins 
after staging to the point  I no longer have  the staging bog.

So my experience may lend support for your finding that the doubling of the 
pulse width does not provide double the fuel flow and that by enriching the 
post staging bins I have compensated for that fuel deficiency and ended up 
with no more bog.
Ed


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Steven W. Boese" <SBoese@uwyo.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:36 PM
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
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 presented.
>
> In particular, the information may be of interest to those tuning their 
> mixture correction tables in the staging region.  There is also data that 
> would be of interest to those using fuel flow rate or fuel totalizing 
> instrumentation that is based on injector pulse integration.
>
> Steve Boese
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On 
> Behalf 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 
> 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 efficiency.
>
> 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
>


> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>