X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ey0-f180.google.com ([209.85.215.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2a) with ESMTPS id 4823842 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:43:00 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.180; envelope-from=dmlobner@gmail.com Received: by eyf18 with SMTP id 18so1827749eyf.25 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:42:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=H24GDZZPSzmka4w59N07D8zGdO6vzjDZI99x5O7EVUo=; b=GSEN4HrQEQWkyyAatCUsVzMv1CGI7/BF1Xgqd+Tr0GMyRuB/NFHJEFLL/DoVqdCgLW rGtp++IUibJjekeg4tvI0D75euLQ3uUwPdD5DRBF3XqQCkipzsBOq8WJtSOFXPk2OdjX wHfc2OYw6gVQFKcJOsomVZbVXhOEeBacW5seU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=wtIRqE49RVx5zCp9fufXGkk62f7YuSm97EMob8KGbajTSlO5yRsr4dDzTfP+qR2NwC t1i/NiD2/t9Mg0LxGPy9eyM9FhbxObs9hYiYzYTKSheLw9t1UERulWPaSA0Ixg0llKPD FDvC9fybIO/BW7xSBZnlkZiKFzYlpZXRWbHZQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.22.71 with SMTP id m7mr1904559ebb.79.1295840542848; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.113.210 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:42:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:42:22 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharged Rotary From: Dustin Lobner To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174be8743df8b0049a8f63e0 --0015174be8743df8b0049a8f63e0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My main thought is that the intake and exhaust manifolds would be a lot simpler to deal with... Dustin On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:19 AM, wrote: > I don't really see a benefit to a supercharger. Althought the turbo is > possibly heavier, the muffler can be lighter due to the exhaust energy be= ing > partially used up by the turbo. the Supercharged engine would have to car= ry > a heavier muffler system, offsetting any savings there. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Winberry > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Sent: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 5:50 pm > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharged Rotary > > I believe Bobby Hughes in Austin is whom you=92re thinking of. > Bryan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Dwayne Parkinson > *Sent:* Friday, January 21, 2011 6:59 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharged Rotary > > I didn't see a reply to this so I'll take a shot. YES. There's at leas= t > one super charged rotary installation. I believe it's somewhere in Texas= . > > You may also be interested in this > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D06yxb5-HvxA > > Happy building / flying > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Dustin Lobner > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Sun, January 9, 2011 4:21:08 PM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Supercharged Rotary > > Hi everyone, > > If going with an intake boosting system, everything I've heard so far is > for using turbos. Has anyone ever used a supercharger? I can't help but > think that a supercharger would be a) more rugged b) easier/simpler to > install and c) lighter weight (for the whole install) compared to a turbo= . > I also know that your efficiency is going to be down compared to a turbo. > > What I was thinking was using something like this: > http://www.procharger.com/pdf/C-1.pdf <--- beware it's a 3MB file. > > Thoughts? > > Dustin > Rockford, IL > > --0015174be8743df8b0049a8f63e0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My main thought is that the intake and exhaust manifolds would be a lot sim= pler to deal with...

Dustin

On Sat= , Jan 22, 2011 at 10:19 AM, <shipchief@aol.com> wrote:
I don't really see a benefit to a superc= harger. Althought the turbo is possibly heavier, the muffler can be lighter= due to the exhaust energy being partially used up by the turbo. the Superc= harged engine would have to carry a heavier muffler system, offsetting any = savings there.



-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Winberry <bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
<= div>
Sent: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 5:50 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharged Rotary

I believe Bo= bby Hughes in Austin is whom you=92re thinking of.
Bryan
=A0
=A0
I didn't see a reply to this so I= 9;ll take a shot. =A0YES. =A0There's at least one super charged rotary = installation. =A0I believe it's somewhere in Texas.
=A0
You may also be interested in this=A0
=A0
=A0
Happy building / flying
=A0
From: Dustin Lobner <dmlobner@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircr= aft <fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sun, January 9, 2011= 4:21:08 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Super= charged Rotary

Hi everyone,

If going with an intake boosting system, everything I've heard so far i= s for using turbos.=A0 Has anyone ever used a supercharger?=A0 I can't = help but think that a supercharger would be a) more rugged b) easier/simple= r to install and c) lighter weight (for the whole install) compared to a tu= rbo.=A0 I also know that your efficiency is going to be down compared to a = turbo.=A0

What I was thinking was using something like this:=A0 http://www.procharger.com/pd= f/C-1.pdf=A0 <--- beware it's a 3MB file.

Thoughts?

Dustin
Rockford, IL
=A0

--0015174be8743df8b0049a8f63e0--