All I simply meant by the comment was that I've been paying attention the entire time. I chose to be an observer of the conversation and step in when there was a specific question that I could help answer.
You were correct in your statement about the in-flight numbers I posted as being of no use for HP calculations, that was my mistake and perhaps I should have admitted that to you. The numbers can be useful in determining whether or not the engine would suit your purposes for your particular airplane.
As for the pump.. throughout development we were well aware of the perceived issues with not including a pump on the carburetor. We spent countless hours developing and testing the engine and are quite satisfied with the current system. We have found (as have others posted on this forum) that the engine performs well in all attitudes and orientations. No matter what theoretically should or should not work we have tested and found that this setup does.
There's no need to headbutt knowledge of theory on the PM system, I am simply here to answer questions, not debate knowledge.
Originally Posted by DarZeelon
After you posted the RPM table for this engine in post #54, you 'stepped on my toes' so to speak, when you and your team suggested the in-flight RPM numbers can be used to calculate and plot the HP curve... When I challenged it you 'left the building'...
I appreciate Horizon Hobby's choice of manufacturer for smaller Evolution two-stroke engines. I represented and dealt in Israel for the manufacturer of your larger two-strokes; MVVS, for several years, until I transferred it to another.
In the last couple of days, when I found the carburettor of this new engine does not have a diaphragm pump, I once again protested, since I am quite sure the pump is crucial. Unless, that is, you want this engine to be 'more of the same' for glow people.
If you like us to discuss the issue further, let's go to the PM system.