![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Taylor wrote
You meant retarding the spark for gasoline with lower anti-knock performance, not advancing it. I meant dynamic control of the spark advance, such as is normal in automotive engines. Spark advance refers to how far in advance of TDC (top dead center) the spark fires. But yes, terminology aside, you are right - I meant using less spark advance than is common now. And yes, that will slightly reduce the power output as I mentioned. By the way aviation gasoline performance numbers (e.g. 100/130, 100LL [which is really 100/130LL], 80/87) are not directly comparable to automobile pump anti-knock index (commonly called octane) in the US, which use the R+M/2 method. This is correct. The reference engine is different. However, the reference engine for aviation use is also not comparable to modern aviation engines. In other words, while the numbers are not directly comparable, they're pretty much equally useful. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield | Paul J. Adam | Military Aviation | 1 | August 9th 04 08:29 PM |
Future Electronic Attack Aircraft | Mike P. | Military Aviation | 1 | April 22nd 04 01:30 AM |
Message To America's Students: The War, The Draft, Your Future | ~ LITTLE HITLER ~ | Military Aviation | 0 | April 11th 04 11:59 PM |
Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ? | championsleeper | Military Aviation | 77 | March 3rd 04 04:11 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |