europa-list
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax 912.

Subject: Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax 912.
From: Wilksch Airmotive <mark@wilksch.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:06:19
Altitude compensated electronic fuel injection for aircrfat is a great idea
provided we can find a way of leaving out the electronics (t least from the
safety critical loop) !

What we need is a good mechanical system.  We had one, the Bosh -K  (used on
the Porsche PFM-3200 ac engine ) but that's now out of production.

.......MARK WILKSCH


-----Original Message-----
From: ami mcfadyean <ami@mcfadyean.freeserve.co.uk>
europa@avnet.co.uk <europa@avnet.co.uk>
Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 09:35
Subject: Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax
912.


>You forgot to mention electronic fuel injection which, in many common
>installations, is altitude compensated by reference to a vacuum datum and
>good to 20k feet and more.
>
>Duncan McFadyean
>
>-----Original Message-----
From: Wilksch Airmotive <mark@wilksch.com>
>Date: Sunday, August 22, 1999 11:35 AM
>Subject: Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax
>912.
>
>
>>Dear Graham and Barry
>>
>>Sorry to harp on - the effect is proportional to the squatre root of
>density
>>altitude for any king of carb without an aneroid.
>>
>>On a cruide (Continental style injection system) its proportional to
>density
>>(worse).
>>
>>On a Lyc injection (Bendix type) its the same as a carb.
>>
>>Of course on a diesel........sorry I'l shut up now.   No futher comments
on
>>enriching carbs!
>>
>>
>>Cheers...........MARK WILKSCH
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tennant <Tennant@t-online.de>
>>Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 09:53
>>Subject: Re: Flying: Fuel consumption in 'Classic' with Rotax
>>912.
>>
>>
>>Hi Graham.
>>
>>I think that the fuel consumption increases with height because the Bing
>>carbs
>>are not fully hight compensating.
>>If you want I can fax you the Katana list also.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Barry
>>
>>
>>Graham Singleton schrieb:
>>>
>>> >One of the most interesting things is that the relationship between
>power
>>> % and
>>> >fuel flow. For example 75% at 4000 ft will use only 16,3 L/hr but at
>6000
>>> ft it
>>> >will use 19,3 L/hr.
>>> >
>>> Hi Barry, I've noticed too that consumption is higher the higher you go.
>>> Any idea why ?
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>