X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost02.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.102] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3839109 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:28:52 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.102; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from laptop (adsl-146-126-207.mco.bellsouth.net[72.146.126.207]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc02) with SMTP id <20090906182813H02000g9fbe>; Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:28:13 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [72.146.126.207] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:28:14 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01CA2EFE.486F6030" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcokPQueshde/AapRMyySeiGMiUJuQAAM32g In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01CA2EFE.486F6030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gonzalo, A lot of people talk about peripheral porting rotaries but nobody is = doing it with a rotary that they plan to fly behind. If it was such a good = thing, Mazda would be P-Porting their cars. Instead they are going away even = from the peripheral port for the exhaust with the Renesis. =20 If 200 HP will do it for you the Renesis is the way to go. This process = of putting an alternative engine in a plane is hard enough without = violating the KISS principle. Put in a Renesis, no turbo, no P-Port. Bill B =20 _____ =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 5:57 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 Gonzalo, I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't think it did. = All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. You can put Renesis rotors into RX7's but not the other way around. The = RX8 rotors are a high compression rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors, the RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1 compression. =20 I guess you could use a turbo for altitude normalizing, but great care = would have to used, I can't say I would recommend it. Consider peripheral ported RX7 engine with 44mm inlets. George (down under) In Chile there are only a few Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars here, = but not too many rotaries, and there are no enthusiasts of the wankel = engine, so for support and parts, I=92ll have to go to the U.S. anyway. =20 If I chose and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is better, = the 2004 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or 93-95 as = you said? Can the =93modern=94 renesis be use with a turbo? =20 Thanks =20 Gonzalo.=20 =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson Sent: Domingo, 23 de Agosto de 2009 1:29 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 With only a couple of exceptions the two- and three- rotor engines take = the same parts. Only the "big" center housing and the eccentric shaft are really special for the 3-rotor engine. Luckily, these don't usually = need to be replaced. Of course, the manifolds, fuel injection and most of the electronics are unique but you won't use the stock parts anyway. Most everything else is either the same as, or interchangeable with, the = '89-'91 or '93-'95 13B turbo. Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or not you can get *those* parts. There is plenty of support in the U.S. for rotary = engines, since Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to bringing in Japan-market parts. Is there such support in Chile? It is tough enough = to build a plane without having to build your own engine too. 2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis Well, actually is not that bad. There are a couple of runways 3000 ft = long, and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from sea level up to 7500 ft, but I don't plan to go there often, and if I do, the runway is very long. I = want to have a little more power just in case. I think the 200 HP is enough, right? Also, what about the parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are much = more available than for the 20B... Thanks!! Gonzalo -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dave Sent: S=E1bado, 22 de Agosto de 2009 17:08 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none of the very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble free installations. I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and both have had more than one turbo failure in the process of finding what works. I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its turbo version. What sort of runway length and density altitude are we talking about, where you intend to operate? Dave Thomas Mann wrote: > > A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp at 291 LBS (132 KGS) > > A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149 KGS) > > A three rotor engine can produce 300hp at 390 LBS (177 KGS) > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis > *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:05 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or two? > > Hi group. As I told in previous questions, I=92m building a Cozy MK = IV, > and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 and 250 > HP, since in Chile we don=92t have such long runways like in the U.S. > and is a pretty mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is > better, a three or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? Can > I use a turbo in a two rotor engine without affecting reliability and > weight? Etc=85 > > Thanks. > > Gonzalo > > Chile > -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01CA2EFE.486F6030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gonzalo,

A lot of people talk about = peripheral porting rotaries but nobody is doing it with a rotary that they plan to = fly behind.=A0 If it was such a good thing, Mazda would be P-Porting their = cars.=A0 Instead they are going away even from the peripheral port for the exhaust with = the Renesis.=A0

If 200 HP will do it for you the = Renesis is the way to go.=A0 This process of putting an alternative engine in a = plane is hard enough without violating the KISS = principle.

Put in a Renesis, no turbo, no = P-Port.

Bill B

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Sunday, August 23, = 2009 5:57 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or two?

 

Gonzalo,

I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I = didn't think it did. All turbo 13B's require low compression = rotors.

You can put Renesis rotors into RX7's but not the = other way around. The RX8 rotors are a high compression rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors, the RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1 = compression.

 

I guess you could use a turbo for altitude = normalizing, but great care would have to used, I can't say I would recommend = it.

Consider peripheral ported RX7 engine with 44mm = inlets.

George (down under)

In = Chile there are only a few Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars here, but not too many = rotaries, and there are no enthusiasts of the wankel engine,  so for support = and parts, I’ll have to go to the U.S. = anyway.

 <= /o:p>

If I chose = and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is better, the 2004 renesis = for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or 93-95 as you said? Can the “modern” renesis be use with a = turbo?

 <= /o:p>

Thanks<= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

Gonzalo. =

 <= /o:p>

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Domingo, 23 de = Agosto de 2009 1:29
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or two?

 

With only a = couple of exceptions the two- and three- rotor engines take the same parts.  = Only the "big" center housing and the eccentric shaft are really = special for the 3-rotor engine.  Luckily, these don't usually need to be replaced.  Of course, the manifolds, fuel injection and most of the electronics are unique but you won't use the stock parts anyway.  = Most everything else is either the same as, or interchangeable with, the = '89-'91 or '93-'95 13B turbo.

Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or not you can get = *those* parts.  There is plenty of support in the U.S. for rotary engines, = since Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to bringing in = Japan-market parts.  Is there such support in Chile?  It is tough = enough to build a plane without having to build your own engine = too.

2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis <gonza@gimenez.cl>

Well, actually is not that bad. There are a couple of runways = 3000 ft long,
and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from sea level up to 7500 ft, but = I
don't plan to go there often, and if I do, the runway is very long. I = want
to have a little more power just in case. I think the 200 HP is = enough,
right?

Also, what about the parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are much = more
available than for the 20B...

Thanks!!

Gonzalo


-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On

Behalf Of Dave
Sent: S=E1bado, 22 de Agosto de 2009 17:08
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?

While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none of = the
very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble free
installations.

I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and both have had more than = one
turbo failure in the process of finding what works.

I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its turbo version.

What sort of runway length and density altitude are we talking = about,
where you intend to operate?
Dave

Thomas Mann wrote:
>
> A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp at 291 LBS (132 KGS)
>
> A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149 KGS)
>
> A three rotor engine can produce 300hp at 390 LBS (177 KGS)
>
> *From:* Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
> *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:05 PM
> *To:* Rotary motors in = aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or two?
>
> Hi group. As I told in previous questions, I’m building a = Cozy MK IV,
> and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 and = 250
> HP, since in Chile we don’t have such long runways like in the U.S.
> and is a pretty mountainous country. Regarding this, which way = is
> better, a three or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? = Can
> I use a turbo in a two rotor engine without affecting reliability = and
> weight? Etc…
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gonzalo
>
> Chile
>


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


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

 

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01CA2EFE.486F6030--