Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Taildragger Power Requirements
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:18:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcnrzBl5PifGJk6TTVaO/5KCMmd9hAAU1FeQ
In-Reply-To: <list-3681150@logan.com>
Message-Id: <20090613121857220.ZEPC26718@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com>

Hi Rick,

I've flown with both an 86 N/A(Naturally Aspired) engine and a 91 Turbo
Block (sans turbo).  I switched from the 86 to the turbo block for several
of reasons (don't know if they were all valid).

1.  The Turbo block intake ports did not have the auxillary secondary valve
to deal with (as did the 86 N/A block) and were simpler to 'Street port".

2.  The turbo block exhaust port did not have the "splitter" as the 86 did.
Reports show the splitter knocks 8db off the noise level - which means it
also knocks off some power - how much is the (still) big question).  The
downside is without the turbo, the turbo block is much nosier than N/A
blocks with the exhaust splitter.  So if you live/fly in a noise sensitive
area you might want to either stay away from the turbo block (sans turbo) or
be prepared for some serious muffling.

3. I had read that the coolant galleys of the turbo were "better" designed
as the turbo block had to get rid of more heat due to its higher power.
Again, I have not ever found a credible Mazda source for this claim

4.  The Turbo rotors have a bit less compression than the N/A rotors, so I
replaced the turbo rotors with the "higher" compression 9.7:1 N/a Rotor -
again to gain a small increase in power.  The downside was of course the
additional expense.

With just a bit of attention to the induction and exhaust systems, you
should be able to get 160 HP without heroic efforts.  Remember we generally
operate at lower rpm ranges than an all-out rotary racer - therefore produce
less HP.  With some careful attention to the induction system, high
compression rotors, perhaps some street porting - 170 -180 HP are possible
with the older 13B.

If I were doing it today, I would without question go with the Renesis.  A
bit more power, bit newer block, no spare parts problem, etc.  On the other
hand, if you have a ready to roll older 13B then I would not hesitate to use
it.

Ed

Ed Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered

Matthews, NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Rick Van Camp
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:10 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Taildragger Power Requirements

All,

I'm new here, been on AREN for a few years and was encouraged to join 
this list by John Slade.  Many thanks John it looks like there are many 
practical owners and builders here.

I have had numerous thoughts on which aircraft and rotary engine 
configuration during the recent weeks.  The complication that changes 
all of this is my desire to see wilderness and teach my toddler aged son 
to appreciate it properly.  For me this translates into a need for a 
float plane.

Consider the Stinson 108-2 as a candidate aircraft.  The power output 
that works well in this aircraft is the 210 TCM IO-360 fuel injected 
6-cylinder.  This gives me a baseline target which the 13B should 
readily be able to achieve.  The difficulty is I hear what I 
(subjectively) think is too much mysticism regarding obtaining power 
levels out of the 13B.  Am I missing something?

The other complication is I like what I read about the Turbo-II 13B from 
1989(?) to 1991.  Maybe as early as 1987; I'm uncertain.  I like this 
engine package because it produces good power from the OEM and it 
features what should be some useful components for the job.  I really 
like the comments I've read regarding the turbo charger reduces the 
engine noise level.

Please advise.

Rick

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com