X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4026391 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:05:20 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (sv1-1.per.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.68]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78231739F4 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:04:42 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id BE03FBEC01B for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:04:39 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Cooling Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:04:41 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA7FB0.5F153F00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091217-0, 12/17/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA7FB0.5F153F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark, I notice your Hp requirements for the 20B, which is 125hp per rotor. = This exactly what I'm aiming for in a single rotor application, but = would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's all I got. Given that the motor can only gulp so much fuel and air and HP is = dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our case. Are you considering = any forced induction other than tuned inlet . I've opted to use the RX8 high compression rotor to give me some = addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to give higher inlet velocity, = however my maths indicate even with this arrangement, 125hp might be = out of the question. Certainly higher RPM would solve the problem, but = that's not available with reduction ratio I'm considering and many are = using, might get to 7,500 but that's it. George ( down under) George,=20 Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling my = current engine. But I am building a P-port 20B to replace this motor = downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 =3D 300). The = Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x 11 x 3). Close enough = for government work. =20 Mark ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA7FB0.5F153F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark,
I notice your Hp requirements for the = 20B, which is=20 125hp per rotor. This exactly what I'm aiming for in a single rotor = application,=20 but would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's all I got.
 
Given that the motor can only gulp so = much fuel and=20 air and HP is dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our case. Are you = considering any forced induction other than tuned = inlet .
 
I've opted to use the RX8 high = compression rotor to=20 give me some addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to give higher = inlet=20 velocity, however my maths indicate even with this  arrangement, = 125hp=20 might be out of the question. Certainly higher RPM would solve the = problem, but=20 that's not available with reduction ratio I'm considering and many are = using,=20 might get to 7,500 but that's it.
George ( down under)
 
 
 
George,
 
Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling my = current=20 engine.  But I am building a P-port 20B to replace this = motor=20 downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 =3D 300).  = The=20 Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x 11 x 3).  Close = enough=20 for government work. 
 
Mark

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA7FB0.5F153F00--