Alfonso Lebron wrote:

It is very likely that a low static thrust will not be of a critical
importance when accelerating the plane (engine) from a standstill or low
speed. Now my question is: What about ease to start the engine? In
cool-cold climate? There we would be starting from a RPM well below 1000
RPM.

Alfonso Lebron

Just to clear things up low static thrust would be a problem
if it did not RAPIDLY INCREASE as the airplane started moving
down the runway.

I see no impediment to easy starting as long as you are
using electronic fuel injection. In fact due to lower
pumping losses the engine should spin slightly faster during
the starting phase. 

A lot of the bad reputation peripheral port engines got in the
early days was because of the use of carburators or 
mechanical fuel injection. Ever try to start a hot
airplane engine with mechanical fuel injection? It is not easy.

Unlike carburators it is up to the high pressure electronic 
injector to do the fuel atomization.

Warm air is the key to easy starting. Warm air can hold
fuel vapor easier than cold air. An electronic fuel injection
can measure the intake air temperature and adjust the
amount of fuel injected accordingly.

BTW  if the spark advance is managed
during the low RPM starting phase even better starting could
result. I know of an electronic ignition system for aircraft
engines that sets zero advance at real low RPM. One flip
of the prop is all it takes to start. This is nothing
new. The Ford Model T had an advance lever on the steering
column. You set it on zero before you hand cranked the
engine.

Paul
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org