![]() |
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 |
100LL "the future looks grim" | Cub Driver | Piloting | 4 | August 6th 04 07:07 AM |
Future of 100LL? | Michael | Owning | 0 | August 2nd 04 09:29 AM |
Future of 100LL? | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | July 30th 04 12:50 AM |
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 |