Dustin,
I have an Eaton MP90 super charger. My
decision to use a super charger instead of a turbo was made early in the design
process. At that time everyone seemed to be destroying turbo as fast as they
could be repaired. I believe most / possibly all the turbo issues have been
resolved by others on this list. I considered a simpler intake, no intercooler
and less heat mass under the cowl a positive. In reality a turbo is probably a
better choice depending on your engine. Super charger drive losses are
substantial and that HP needs to be cooled. A turbo and muffler are likely to
weight less than a super charger, mount, exhaust manifold and muffler. For optimum
intercooler efficiency (60%) you need a 10-1 air flow ratio. Not letting the
intercooler air into the cowl would keep it from competing with engine cooling
air. If using a Renesis I would be very careful with a turbo. Pettit Racing has
some information \ solutions regarding exhaust port damage due to the side
ports, back pressure and heat. A turbo may need to be located further away from
the exhaust ports. Also the longevity of super chargers using self
contained oil has not been established in our application. I occasionally check
the super charger like the gear box. Gear lashing and end play. The
attached performance expectations are probably within 5% of reality. 5 psi is
about the limit with a super charger. If you run more boost you will need an
intercooler. Intercooler losses means more boost. That means a larger / heaver
super charger or turning it faster. I ended up running water injection during
take off (38-40” MP) as a compromise.
Bobby
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Dustin Lobner
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011
9:42 PM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re:
Supercharged Rotary
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, <shipchief@aol.com>
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 being partially
used up by the turbo. the Supercharged engine would have to carry a heavier
muffler system, offsetting any savings there.
Sent:
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 5:50 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharged Rotary
I believe Bobby Hughes in Austin is whom you’re thinking of.
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 least one super charged rotary
installation. I believe it's somewhere in Texas.
You may also be interested in this
From: Dustin Lobner <dmlobner@gmail.com>
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
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