X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-db03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.97] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4556513 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:46:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.97; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-db03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oA5EjPDj010820 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:45:25 -0400 Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.f8d.167798c (37043) for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-m16.mail.aol.com (magic-m16.mail.aol.com [172.21.188.208]) by cia-db03.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id MAILCIADB031-90b34cd4187e12f; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:45:18 -0400 From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: <13f6ee.576a72a9.3a05727e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:45:18 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: My favorite takeaway from the KY flyin: potential efficie... To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13f6ee.576a72a9.3a05727e_boundary" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5382 X-AOL-IP: 72.187.199.116 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Lehanover@aol.com --part1_13f6ee.576a72a9.3a05727e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2010 1:50:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, shipchief@aol.com writes: I had an intuitive impression 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 flow enough fuel for the required power level? If the injected fuel removes energy from the air flow, (Latent heat of evaporation), one result would be a reduction in velocity. So, the second injector would inject into lowered velocity colder airflow. Vaporization would be less complete. Fuel flow per HP would be higher. Poorly vaporized fuel runs leaner, so more fuel is required to get a good F/A reading or a good EGT. So, one super high pressure injector with a high "Pop" pressure, for great vaporization, and the installation of some excess energy would be closer to ideal, than 2 low pressure injectors. Less the redundancy for aircraft use. Just a guess though......... Lynn E. Hanover --part1_13f6ee.576a72a9.3a05727e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 11/5/2010 1:50:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=20 shipchief@aol.com writes:

I= had an intuitive impression that the injected=20 fuel slows the passage of intake air, so shutting off one injector, pref= erably=20 the one in the bigger intake port, could increase power by providing mor= e air=20 for combustion. If the other injector could flow enough fuel for the req= uired=20 power level?

If the injected fuel removes energy from the air flow, (Latent heat= of=20 evaporation), one result would be a reduction in velocity.

So, the second injector would inject into lowered velocity colder air= flow.=20 Vaporization would be less complete. Fuel flow per HP would be=20 higher. Poorly vaporized fuel runs leaner, so more fuel is required= to get=20 a good F/A reading or a good EGT.

So, one super high pressure injector with a high "Pop" pressure, for= great=20 vaporization, and the installation of some excess energy would be closer= to=20 ideal, than 2 low pressure injectors. Less the redundancy for aircraf= t=20 use.

Just a guess though.........

Lynn E. Hanover

--part1_13f6ee.576a72a9.3a05727e_boundary--