> Paul,  the following statement was posted on the
> Tailwind discussion
> group.  Do you think it is true and how would you
> explain such
> performance?   Jerry
> > Just found this: lsecorp.com, then click on news
on
> left side. Klaus
> Savier flew the Vari-eze nonstop from Santa Paula,
> CA to Panama City,
> FL, 1985 statute miles in 8 hrs 58 min on 25.8
> gallons. Slightly under
> 80 miles per gallon.
> > Its true. Klaus had a strong tail wind. As I
recall
> he also had oxygen :)
> He leans his engine severely and advances the
> ignition. He also uses
> a high energy multi-spark capacitor discharge
> ignition system to
> fire the lean mixture. Another factor is the
> aircraft is highly
> refined aerodynamically. Yet another factor is he
> uses solid state fuel
> injection but it is not computer controlled. Cheap
> analog circuits (cost $1 each)
> called 555's or something similar are used to
change
> the pulse width
> on the electric injectors. Each cylinder gets the
> same amount of fuel. He may be
> able to adjust the fuel on each cylinder
> individually according to the EGT. You have
> plenty of time up there to diddle around.
> > > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
> > > > Paul,
> How do the chips know how much fuel to deliver
does
> it work on RPM or throttle position or something
> like that?
> George ( down under)
> > I am not exactly sure about all the details but
with
> a fixed pitch prop you could probably
> get away with RPM alone. You only really have two
> RPM points where you need precise
> mixtures, climb and cruise. You could manually
> adjust for those two conditions.
> Paul Lipps probably designed the system. The
> attached schematic diagram for a rotary
> uses a throttle pot. I have attached another 3D
> showing a way to make a throttle pot device.
> Freescale manifold pressure sensors could also be
> used.
> > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
> > Paul,
> > You did it again!  (I am referring to a correction
> sent about 6 months
> ago.)
> > Check your 555 graphic in above email.
> > Don't put TWO tabs on your "timing wheel" - use
just
> ONE.  The ONE tab
> needs to rotate around (at e-shaft speed) to
trigger
> the two separate
> injector circuits 180* apart.
> > As shown in your graphic, you will fire both
> injector sets
> simultaneously (for rotor 1 and rotor 2) twice per
> revolution.
> > Normally I would just lurk, but the Wankel
confuses
> enough people
> already.  (It shouldn't - it's simpler than a
piston
> engine.)
> > FWIW.
> > -Vince Orton
> > True. Sorry. Is that your diagram or mine Vince?
> Well I had it lying around so I used it. The
subject
> only comes up once a
> year or so. I probably never bothered to redraw
the
> diagram.
> > How's this?
> > There is another mistake in that two injectors are
> fired for each rotor
> while only one power transistor is used. I would
use
> one power transistor for
> each of four injectors instead.
> >

----------------------------------------------------------------------

> > Here is some more info on the little jewels.
> > -- > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
> > And for a negative opinion:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Super simple 555 based fuel injection
> system
> From: Rotary Engine <rotaryeng@earthlink.net>
> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:14:19
> > >      I have actually built an electronic fuel
> injection system. It is a lot
>      more complicated than this.
> >      You have to change the duty cycle with
manifold
> pressure. The engine
>      won't run unless you do this, at least in a
> simple fashion.
> >      You have to change the duty cycle with RPM.
> Again, the engine won't run
>      unless you do this at least in a simple
> fashion.
> >      The throttle position alone isn't enough to
set
> the duty cycle. The
>      engine won't run.
> >      In theory, you could sense the intake air
mass
> flow and set the duty
>      cycle based on that alone. (Manifold pressure
> and RPM together allow you
>      to estimate mass flow.)
> >      I think you would be better off with a
> hand-controlled needle valve than
>      you would be with a 555 based EFI.
> >      Bill Dube'
> >
---------------------------------------------------
> > Bill overlooked the fact that the pulse rate is
> directional proportional
> to RPM as there is a shaft sensor that triggers
the
> 555.
> He may have a point about throttle position.
Perhaps
> it is easier
> and cheaper to use manifold pressure to change the
> pulse width.
> I'll look into to it and see if I can come up with
a
> circuit that works.
> I don't want to use mass air flow alone as that
> implies mass airflow sensors
> that restrict the intake flow.
> > -- > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


paul,

i'm no fuel injection expert, but a reference i have
calls your system an "alpha-n" system.

gary in midland
--------------------------------------------------
page 9, fuel injection basics, petersen publishing

"alpha-n

OK, which has more potential to have the lowest bsfc,
a "severely leaned" n/a engine or a turbo-compound
which would probably need to run richer?

Dan Stanzione

Turbo compound would win hands down.
Actually I don't think a turbo compound has to run richer.
Here is an interesting operators manual on the subject.