X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2o) with ESMTPS id 4874392 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:45:50 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=dmlobner@gmail.com Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so1312535ewy.25 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:45:13 -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=czklD7sBpv+fgm8AD545rCLB9w4OWA1f7mTiktwS7qI=; b=xgbcZxMT1srkfUd/U5qxS832TxC58XA+rDMBKDAE/Lnojjw8xiiVxw7HgZ2eh7JadT Ippii7vXJeitjwADPMgaXZs8MZXQ/3R70Ww8Y+ndr5CMdDjyhAcN/Dx2KIYwA193QG43 mIsi7vSa8UKe8uu5DcPkxzrpohImxosuY5Xg4= 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=qoxKPsZbRHTyBgjEJSyFqhi2SaL11RJHPAo/jkK1CmBF0/w7hFxDGAF06s0sxwDZwB hwV3dlYepTYAjR0Up0UT9ieYZvWaaa1J7dOZYTEY4EJr12/8Hv9gKvaFxEbwE/InRX6U seRy0A3vFpKwkQzMIYHqLUzs6qM2dmapwNzwo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.105.74 with SMTP id s10mr218648ebo.24.1297989913639; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.33.135 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:45:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:45:13 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: - Day dreaming... From: Dustin Lobner To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174be152b97a2f049c83d36c --0015174be152b97a2f049c83d36c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gross weight combined with reliability is pushing me away from a turbo, but then some people say that just to quiet the rotary down, a turbo ends up being lighter than the required muffler (someone on this list said that). I've gone back and forth, every time I say one way someone says that I should go the other way. *shrugs* I'd love the lack of complexity, but if I'm going to add 60 pounds to keep it quiet, I might as well be making horsepower. FWIW, the HP rating is 160HP max continuous. People fly with 215HP 390s an= d it works well. I wouldn't be using 200HP at cruise, more like 100HP. Dustin On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Charlie England w= rote: > Oh yeah, one more thing: fuel. Where will you put it, & if you find a > place, do you intend to fly only solo? If you're making a full 200 hp at > cruise, you'll be burning at least 17-18 gal per hour, probably closer to= 20 > gph. A LOT more than that in climb, if you use the turbo's HP.IIRC, leadi= ng > edge tanks on a M-II hold somewhere between 35-40 gal. The header tank wi= ll > hold around 29 gal, but reduces payload. There will be serious gross weig= ht > issues if you carry more than 1 1/2 hrs of fuel + 2 people + baggage. > > FWIW... > > > On 2/17/2011 8:04 AM, Charlie England wrote: > > I'll be the wet blanket. > > You said your airframe is a Mustang-II. The largest practical HP the > airframe is designed to handle is around 200 (actually less than that). = How > short is your runway? 200 hp with a controllable prop should get you off = the > ground in 500 ft, at worst. How high do you need to fly, & how fast do yo= u > reasonably expect to go? M-II's with slightly over 200 hp normally aspira= ted > Lycs, if built 'clean' & reasonably light, can cruise at or over design V= NE. > Flying high, with lower indicated airspeed, will not protect from flutter > (death). > > A properly tuned Renesis will make a bit over 200 hp. Is there a reason f= or > desiring more, other than bragging rights? > > > Charlie > > > > On 2/17/2011 6:31 AM, Dustin Lobner wrote: > > Bill, > > I'm expecting 10 years to build, hoping for 7. I understand that part. = I > also understand fabricating the intake, I looked at pictures of the stock > mazda engine and my face basically went o.O > > The compression ratio I might have lowered just to prevent detonation. I= 'm > going to have the engine tweaked by a professional engine builder of good > reputation before I use it, this may be one of the things done to it. > > You say below you have two speeds, takeoff and cruise. I guess my though= t > is to use the aux valve and the ECU's ability to turn it on and off to al= low > tweaking of cruise and takeoff moreso than you otherwise could. One nice > thing about this is that I have free dyno time to sort this all out. > > Dustin > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Bill Bradburry > wrote: > >> Hi Dustin, >> >> Dreaming is good. There are a lot more dreamers on this site than there >> are fliers! You are going to fit in quite well. >> >> >> >> The reason for all those valves and plumbing on the Renesis is that it i= s >> normally aspirated. They don=92t make a turbo for it. It has 10:1 >> compression so you need to take that into consideration when you boost i= t. >> You could blow it up. Also with the plane, unlike the car, you basicall= y >> have two speeds, take off and cruise. You don=92t need to try and maxim= ize >> the intake for all those different rpms because you will only be running= at, >> mostly, two of them. The intake that comes from the factory will not fi= t >> under the cowl on a plane. This means you will have to build your own. = If >> you start trying to do all the plumbing and valve flipping that you are >> talking about, you will certainly need a bunch of friends with lots and = lots >> of EEEEs behind their name. >> >> >> >> You would be surprised at the journey that this becomes. I started >> working on my plane in 2002 and it just passed its Airworthiness >> Inspection. I still haven=92t flown it because there are still issues t= hat >> need to be tweeked. Maybe next week! >> >> >> >> Good Luck! >> >> >> >> Bill B N249B >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *= On >> Behalf Of *Dustin Lobner >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:39 PM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] - Day dreaming... >> >> >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I posted this today on the HomeBuiltAirplanes forum. Going to C/P it he= re >> for comments/questions/flaming. >> >> Background, I'm planning on building up a Renesis with a Turbonetics >> turbo, putting it into a Mustang II. I'm planning on using MegaSquirt 3= (or >> whatever is available when I get there) ECUs. These ECUs control things >> like waste gate management, any servos you want, in addition to the the = EFI >> and ignition. >> >> So... >> >> The Renesis has 6 intake ports (I think a 4 port model was made for >> awhile, but I'm going to buy a crate engine so that's out). I found a wh= ite >> paper somewhere, written by the designers of the Renesis, talking about = each >> port. There's the primary, which is always open. Secondary comes on 3,50= 0-4K >> RPMs-ish. Aux turns on at 7.5K RPMs. The ECU I'll be using has outputs f= or >> controlling things like butterfly valves for different intake runners. >> >> My understanding is that most people simply run on the pri/secondary onl= y >> and plug the aux, or run with them all going. Seeing as how I'll have an= ECU >> to do some work if I want, what do people think about valving either the= aux >> or the secondary and aux? The ECU is flexible regarding mixtures and >> whatnot, so I'm thinking I could tune the "cruise" setting for 6K RPMs, = aux >> closed, and then tune the "max power" setting for 7k RPMs with the butte= rfly >> opening at 6800 or something. Wastegate (should I go with a turbo) can v= ary >> by RPM too, so I could have it set for "normalize" 6800 and below, and >> "boost the heck out of it" above that. >> >> *Shrugs* I know, it's an airplane, KISS. I have a few years before I'll = be >> to the point of being able to wrench on the engine, so I'm dreaming abou= t it >> now and hashing things out now so that when the engine gets here I can j= ust >> build. >From discussions on the Mazda list, different length runners DO >> matter quite a bit, so it's not like this is a completely worthless thou= ght. >> >> Thinking about it, valving the secondary seems a bit stupid, because if >> that valve breaks you don't have a good portion of your power, whereas i= f >> you lose the aux it's not the end of the world. >> >> >> >> I guess what I'm going for is, I remember some conversation here about >> different length runners for different tuning. This could let you have = the >> best of both worlds...thoughts? And mind you, I have a two engineer >> aviation minded friends, one with a ME/EE double and one with an AeroE, = so >> I'm not completely without help designing this. >> >> Dustin >> >> > > > --0015174be152b97a2f049c83d36c Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gross weight combined with reliability is pushing me away from a turbo, but= then some people say that just to quiet the rotary down, a turbo ends up b= eing lighter than the required muffler (someone on this list said that).=A0= I've gone back and forth, every time I say one way someone says that I= should go the other way.=A0 *shrugs*=A0 I'd love the lack of complexit= y, but if I'm going to add 60 pounds to keep it quiet, I might as well = be making horsepower.

FWIW, the HP rating is 160HP max continuous.=A0 People fly with 215HP 3= 90s and it works well.=A0 I wouldn't be using 200HP at cruise, more lik= e 100HP.

Dustin

On Thu, Feb 17, 20= 11 at 8:16 AM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Oh yeah, one more thing: fuel. Where will you put it, & if you find a place, do you intend to fly only solo? If you're making a full 200 hp at cruise, you'll be burning at least 17-18 gal per hour, probably closer to 20 gph. A LOT more than that in climb, if you use the turbo's HP.IIRC, leading edge tanks on a M-II hold somewhere between 35-40 gal. The header tank will hold around 29 gal, but reduces payload. There will be serious gross weight issues if you carry more than 1 1/2 hrs of fuel + 2 people + baggage.

FWIW...


On 2/17/2011 8:04 AM, Charlie England wrote:
=20 =20 I'll be the wet blanket.

You said your airframe is a Mustang-II. The largest practical HP the airframe is designed to handle is around 200 (actually less than that).=A0 How short is your runway? 200 hp with a controllable prop should get you off the ground in 500 ft, at worst. How high do you need to fly, & how fast do you reasonably expect to go? M-II's with slightly over 200 hp normally aspirated Lycs, if buil= t 'clean' & reasonably light, can cruise at or over design = VNE. Flying high, with lower indicated airspeed, will not protect from flutter (death).

A properly tuned Renesis will make a bit over 200 hp. Is there a reason for desiring more, other than bragging rights?


Charlie


On 2/17/2011 6:31 AM, Dustin Lobner wrote:
Bill,

I'm expecting 10 years to build, hoping for 7.=A0 I understand that part.=A0 I also understand fabricating the intake, I looked at pictures of the stock mazda engine and my face basically went o.O

The compression ratio I might have lowered just to prevent detonation.=A0 I'm going to have the engine tweaked by a professional engine builder of good reputation before I use it, this may be one of the things done to it.

You say below you have two speeds, takeoff and cruise.=A0 I guess my thought is to use the aux valve and the ECU's ability to tur= n it on and off to allow tweaking of cruise and takeoff moreso than you otherwise could.=A0 One nice thing about this is that I have free dyno time to sort this all out.

Dustin


On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dustin Lobner
Sent:<= /b> Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:39 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] - Day dreaming...

=A0

Hi everyone,

I posted this today on the HomeBuiltAirplanes forum.=A0 Going to C/P it here for comments/questions/flaming.

Background, I'm planning on building up a Renesis with a Turbonetics turbo, putting it into a Mustang II.=A0 I'm planning on using MegaSquirt 3 (or whatever is available when I get there) ECUs.=A0 These ECUs control things like waste gate management, any servos you want, in addition to the the EFI and ignition.=A0

So... <copy-paste from the forum>

The Renesis has 6 intake ports (I think a 4 port model was made for awhile, but I'm going to buy a crate engine so that's out). I found a white paper somewhere, written by the designers of the Renesis, talking about each port. There's the primary, which is always open. Secondary comes on 3,500-4K RPMs-ish. Aux turns on at 7.5K RPMs. The ECU I'll be using has outputs for controlling things like butterfly valves for different intake runners.

My understanding is that most people simply run on the pri/secondary only and plug the aux, or run with them all going. Seeing as how I'll hav= e an ECU to do some work if I want, what do people think about valving either the aux or the secondary and aux? The ECU is flexible regarding mixtures and whatnot, so I'm thinking I could tune the "cruise" setting for 6K RPMs, au= x closed, and then tune the "max power" set= ting for 7k RPMs with the butterfly opening at 6800 or something. Wastegate (should I go with a turbo) can vary by RPM too, so I could have it set for "normalize" 6800 and below, and &= quot;boost the heck out of it" above that.

*Shrugs* I know, it's an airplane, KISS. I have a few years before I'll be to the point of bein= g able to wrench on the engine, so I'm dreaming about it now and hashing things out now so that when the engine gets here I can just build. >From discussions on the Mazda list, different length runners DO matter quite a bit, so it's not like this is a completely worthless thought.

Thinking about it, valving the secondary seems a bit stupid, because if that valve breaks you don't have a good portion of your power, wherea= s if you lose the aux it's not the end of the world.

<end paste>

I guess what I'm going for is, I remember some conversation here about different length runners for different tuning.=A0 This could let you have the best of both worlds...thoughts?=A0 And mind you, I have a two engineer aviation minded friends, one with a ME/EE double and one with an AeroE, so I'm not completely without help designing this.

Dustin





--0015174be152b97a2f049c83d36c--