|
|
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
Thanks
Gonzalo.
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. Giménez 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
Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Sábado, 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. Giménez 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.html
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|