X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 5003497 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:22:47 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so1768065fxm.25 for ; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:22:10 -0700 (PDT) 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=Twv8FYk5gnmP8aGlFJyPXWgQP4YhgIzxfCDu2gAzoUQ=; b=RViMCzd2o8MeY3hzFsDejmRaN1KLkVZdRd+WYE5ud87sUrajqNfyOzGsnxtFsCeGhf LmUQlVlNIdTKEoK3bacXXcxiMVBnx+1Vd+e94UyohwENP127TVm6uqtmi8qH7ILoUCo5 g/QW7ZKgw6MBzfMwSbQbjh2VG2mcYoAVGAvtQ= 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=Fx38srF4nwo96R37Z8oV6yeGwad5yvbbntCYZP/TwONuEk2OhrSwUaLpx2FPkWvnp1 hH7nUGO3QWPxvuRBIy46zvHvd6UROEKGFrDvmQ3rGitS0DdDyuqrl2hJVXzl8tWBhWIj oz9jQZ5ITigMZzmmxo6ijVygSsvLOp9DYbu2k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.28.220 with SMTP id n28mr3391451fac.101.1307208130114; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.100.12 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:22:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:22:10 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fwd: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747c7823e336704a4e61c95 --00151747c7823e336704a4e61c95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks Kelly. How are you progressing with your early runs? Mark On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Kelly Troyer wrote: > Mark, > Again "Well Said" !!.........................<:) > > > Kelly Troyer > *"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)* > > "13B ROTARY"_ Engine > "RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2 > "MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold > > "TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mark Steitle > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Sat, June 4, 2011 10:54:54 AM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Fwd: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine > > Guys, > > Here's the latest posting on the Lancair list relating to alternative > (rotary) engines. It will likely be my last posting as I feel that my time > would be better spent talking to my dog. > > Mark > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mark Steitle > Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM > Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine > To: Lancair Mailing List > > > Hi Gary, > > Since I have actually completed a successful rotary installation, I would > like to comment on the rotary engine option. > > First, addressing the negatives, > > 1) Apex seals - The apex seal issue has been solved long ago and is no > longer an issue, unless the engine is over-boosted and allowed to detonate; > if this is a concern, do what the boosted guys do and go with the oversized > 3mm apex seals. Even if the apex seal issue was still an issue, losing an > apex seal is equivalent to burning an exhaust valve. The engine will still > run, just be down on power. > > 2) Insurance - Obtaining full-coverage insurance has not been an issue for > my ES, > > 3) Complex Systems - Not sure what you're referring with complex systems > (running EFI which also handles ignition); Yes, I'm running 6 coils, but > that provides redundancy, also running dual alternators/batteries (Z-14 > design) same as many others. > > 4) weight is virtually the same as IO-540 (to the best of my > recollection, my ES weighed in at 2080#), > > 5) Cooling drag - I will concede this one, but this can be minimized with > careful cooling design and the use of cowl flaps. The P-51, and others, > were liquid cooled. As I recall, the Voyager was liquid cooled and it made > it around the globe non-stop. > > 5) Rotary engine's exhaust is loud - Agree, but this can be handled with a > turbo, a good muffler, sound insulation, and/or an ANR headset. > > > As for the rotary's positives: > > 1) The rotary is the epitome of the KISS principle. The 20B (3-rotor) > rotary engine has only 4 moving parts (3 cast iron rotors and an eccentric > shaft). There's no camshaft, cam gears, rocker arms, intake or exhaust > valves, pushrods, lifters, valve springs, keepers, connecting rods, caps, or > bolts, piston pins, etc. - If it isn't there, it can't break. > > 2) 350hp (n/a p-port 3-rotor) > > 3) While parts are not exactly cheap (by automotive standards), they are > much cheaper than certified a/c parts. The typical overhaul cost for a > rotary engine is less than the cost of one jug for a certified engine. > > 4) Millions of rotary cars have been built; the rotary engine is well > proven technology. > > 5) Cruise Fuel burn is for my p-ported 3-rotor is14.5-15 gph, 23 gph in > climb mode. However, the rotary can burn mo-gas. > > 6) No concern with shock cooling. Just pull the throttle and descend, no > worry. > > 7) No hot-start issues. > > 8) Comes stock with 2 plugs/rotor, providing redundancy > > The stock rotary engine redlines at 9000 rpm. I typically cruise at 5200 > rpm. Since the rotors turn at 1/3 crank speed, the rotors are only turning > 1733 rpm in cruise. If/when I want to go faster, I run it at 5900 rpm, the > point on the rpm curve where there is the least amount of bearing load. > Even at 5900 rpm, the rotors are turning less than 2000 rpm. > > I'll be the first to admit that the rotary route is not for everybody, and > I'm not trying to convince anyone to go down this path. Personally, I'm > extremely pleased with my choice of engines and plan on flying it for many > years to come. All I ask is that it is given a fair evaluation. > > Mark S. > Austin, TX > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Gary Casey wrote: > >> Lot's of interesting comments on the subject of alternate engines. I >> was convinced I was going to use an automotive V-8 at one time, but the last >> straws were the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting insurance and the >> low (or impossibility) of resae value. As someone said, the resale value >> would likely be the same as an aircraft without an engine. And my analysis >> showed that the installed cost would be about the same (or more) then for an >> aircraft engine. But the internals of any of these engines are robust and >> should able to tolerate high continuous power. My conclusions - opinions of >> the disadvantages: >> >> >> >> V-8 with reduction gear: >> >> Heavy - about 150 pound penalty >> >> Complex installation and systems >> >> Slight fuel consumption penalty >> >> >> >> V-8 engine direct drive turbocharged: >> >> Heavy - about 75 pound penalty >> >> Complex installation and systems >> >> >> >> Rotary engine: >> >> Very complex installation and systems >> >> Heavy - up to 50 pound penalty >> >> Potentially fragile apex seals >> >> Hgh cooling drag >> >> Noisy >> >> Significant fuel consumption penalty increases the weight penalty >> >> >> >> Turbine engine: >> >> High initial cost >> >> High fuel consumption negates any weight savings >> >> >> >> Misc. opinions: The liquid-cooled V-8 dates back to about 1918 when >> Chevrolet built the first mass-produced one, so it's technology is >> even older than the air-cooled engine's "30's technology" that someone >> mentioned. >> >> >> >> Gary Casey >> > > > --00151747c7823e336704a4e61c95 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Kelly. =A0How are you progressing with your early runs? =A0

=
Mark

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11= :24 AM, Kelly Troyer <keltro@att.net> wrote:
Mark,
=A0=A0 Again "Well Said" !!.........................<:)=A0

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"= MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo



From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com&g= t;
To: Rotary motors in a= ircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 10:5= 4:54 AM
Subject: [FlyRota= ry] Fwd: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine

Guys,=A0=20

Here's the latest posting on the Lancair list relating to alternat= ive (rotary) engines. =A0It will likely be my last posting as I feel that m= y time would be better spent talking to my dog.

Mark=A0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:= Mark Steitle <msteitl= e@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of= Engine
To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
<= br>
Hi Gary,=A0=20

Since I have actually completed a successful rotary installation, I wo= uld like to comment on the rotary engine option. =A0

First, addressing the negatives,=A0

1) =A0Apex seals - The apex seal issue has been solved long ago and is= no longer an issue, unless the engine is over-boosted and allowed to deton= ate; if this is a concern, do what the boosted guys do and go with the=A0ov= ersized 3mm apex seals. =A0Even if the apex seal issue was still an issue, = losing an apex seal is equivalent to burning an exhaust valve. =A0The engin= e will still run, just be down on power.=A0

2) Insurance - =A0Obtaining full-coverage insurance has not been an is= sue for my ES,=A0

3) Complex Systems - Not sure what you're referring with complex s= ystems (running EFI which also handles ignition); =A0Yes, I'm running 6= coils, but that provides redundancy, also running dual alternators/batteri= es (Z-14 design) same as many others. =A0

=A04) =A0weight is virtually the same as IO-540 (to the best of my rec= ollection, my ES weighed in at =A02080#),
=A0
5) Cooling drag - I will concede this one, but this can be minimized w= ith careful cooling design and the use of cowl flaps. =A0The P-51, and othe= rs, were liquid cooled. =A0As I recall, the Voyager was liquid cooled and i= t made it around the globe non-stop. =A0 =A0

5) Rotary engine's exhaust is loud - Agree, but this can be handle= d with a turbo, a good muffler, sound insulation, and/or an ANR headset.


As for the rotary's positives:

1) =A0The rotary is the epitome of the KISS principle. =A0The 20B (3-r= otor) rotary engine has only 4 moving parts (3 cast iron rotors and an ecce= ntric shaft). =A0There's no camshaft, cam gears, rocker arms, intake or= exhaust valves, pushrods, lifters, valve springs, keepers, connecting rods= , caps, or bolts, piston pins, etc. =A0- If it isn't there, it can'= t break.=A0

2) 350hp (n/a p-port 3-rotor)

3) While parts are not exactly cheap (by automotive standards), they a= re much cheaper than certified a/c parts. =A0The typical overhaul cost for = a rotary engine is less than the cost of one jug for a certified engine.

4) Millions of rotary cars have been built; the rotary engine is well = proven technology.

5) Cruise Fuel burn is for my p-ported 3-rotor is14.5-15 gph, 23 gph i= n climb mode. =A0However, the rotary can burn mo-gas.

6) No concern with shock cooling. =A0Just pull the throttle and descen= d, no worry.

7) No hot-start issues. =A0

8) Comes stock with 2 plugs/rotor, providing redundancy=A0

The stock rotary engine redlines at 9000 rpm. =A0I typically cruise at= 5200 rpm. =A0Since the rotors turn at 1/3 crank speed, the rotors are only= turning 1733 rpm in cruise. =A0If/when I want to go faster, I run it at 59= 00 rpm, the point on the rpm curve where there is the least amount of beari= ng load. =A0Even at 5900 rpm, the rotors are turning less than 2000 rpm.=A0=

I'll be the first to admit that the rotary route is not for everyb= ody, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to go down this path. =A0Per= sonally, I'm extremely pleased with my choice of engines and plan on fl= ying it for many years to come. =A0All I ask is that it is given a fair eva= luation. =A0 =A0

Mark S.
Austin, TX


On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> wrote:

Lot's of interesting comments on the subject of alternate engines.= =A0 I was convinced I was going to use an automotive V-8 at one time, but t= he last straws were the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting insurance = and the low (or impossibility) of resae value.=A0 As someone said, the resa= le value would likely be the same as an aircraft without an engine.=A0 And = my analysis showed that the installed cost would be about the same (or more= )=A0then for an aircraft engine.=A0 But the internals of any of these engin= es are robust and should=A0able to tolerate high continuous power.=A0 My co= nclusions - opinions of the disadvantages:

=A0

V-8 with reduction gear:

Heavy - about 150 pound penalty

Complex installation and systems

Slight fuel consumption penalty

=A0

V-8 engine direct drive turbocharged:

Heavy - about 75 pound penalty

Complex installation and systems

=A0

Rotary engine:

Very complex installation and systems

Heavy - up to 50 pound penalty

Potentially fragile apex seals

Hgh cooling drag

Noisy

Significant fuel consumption penalty increases the weight penalty

=A0

Turbine engine:

High initial cost

High fuel consumption negates any weight savings

=A0

Misc. opinions:=A0 The liquid-cooled V-8 dates back to about 1918 when C= hevrolet built the first mass-produced one, so it's technology is even= =A0older than the air-cooled engine's "30's technology" t= hat someone mentioned.

=A0

Gary Casey




--00151747c7823e336704a4e61c95--