X-Junk-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=EuKsUhUA c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=dSgDd1yB17SqwV0kVCKxMw==:117 a=dSgDd1yB17SqwV0kVCKxMw==:17 a=aGBzoAJ4ndkA:10 a=y4yBn9ojGxQA:10 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=wBVkCjY7-UXbGxd2FzEA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Rkptbut9y_AA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=iHW-W6vQwF_a_cZM:21 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=xHaYSeaRmFCljTX2gecA:9 a=HXjIzolwW10A:10 a=T6a71-JsGAwA:10 a=Urk15JJjZg1Xo0ryW_k8:22 From: "Thomas Mann tmann@n200lz.com" Received: from mail.infosaic.com ([216.226.129.58] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2.14) with ESMTPS id 694821 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:31:39 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.226.129.58; envelope-from=tmann@n200lz.com Received: by mail.infosaic.com via HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:37:05 -0400 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: re: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbos......... Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:37:05 -0400 Reply-To: tmann@n200lz.com Message-ID: <4ece9d94b0d64b638588f6688da0a130@n200lz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=80a97f17558f41a794701448db8c2226 X-Originating-IP: [98.168.211.160] In-Reply-To: References: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --80a97f17558f41a794701448db8c2226 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=b82bd028719b4c9dab47dcbb15e9fb82 --b82bd028719b4c9dab47dcbb15e9fb82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I considered a 13B with a turbo and compared that (Weight & HP) to a NA 20B= . Pound for pound the was comparable for take-off and landing. .... but what I kept coming back to was 'Why did you select the Rotary in = the first place?" The answer to that centered around the practically bullet proof simplicity= of the design. Why would you go to a power plant that is truly simple in design only to c= omplicate it with a Turbo? That's my logic path for selecting the 20B vs. a 13B-Turbo Either power plant will kick butt in a Long-EZ. T Mann ---------------------------------------- From: "James Whitehurst flyboyusvi@gmail.com" Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:47 AM To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbos......... ??? Above 10,000 ft? I couldn't figure out how. so I just received my Borg = Warner EFR9280 Turbos with water and oil cooled ctr aluminum housing. I kno= w its more complex but I figure I'll have the HP to 18,000'. Comments enj= oyed? James whitehurst Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: lehanover lehanover@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 9:47 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbos......... As you can see on this dyno sheet much power is available where most folks = like to run aircraft Rotaries. The ports you see in that picture are designed to operate best at 9,400 RPM= , at 250HP, however that is a 12-A engine. 2292 CCs vice 2900 CCs for a 13-B, so more power from a 13-B. So ports desi= gned for best power at say 5,500 RPM would have a shorter top (Closing Poin= t) and a smaller bridge opening. I do not let any of the side seal ends to = cross over the port so side seal damage is not a factor. So very nearly sto= ck service life minus the wear you would expect from spending hours of oper= ation at full throttle. With synthetic 2 cycle oil in the fuel and in the s= ump I suspect (but do not know) about 500 to 1,000 hours. A hot compression= check or a hot leakdown test will tell the tail.........LEH In a message dated 8/28/2020 7:31:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, flyrotary@la= ncaironline.net writes: One word....Turbo normalizing. Ok that's two words, but that's my plan. In your opinion, how reliable is a bridge port engine? At what RPM do you s= ee the benefits? Les Criscillo Pilot, Brewmaster, Maker From: Rotary motors in aircraft on behalf of = lehanover lehanover@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:34:07 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Turbos......... We don't need no stinking turbos.....when we can have 250HP bridge ports...= ... Lynn E. Hanover --b82bd028719b4c9dab47dcbb15e9fb82 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
I considered a 13B with a turbo and compared that (Weight & HP) to= a NA 20B. 
Pound for pound the was comparable for take-off and landing.
 
.... but what I kept coming back to was 'Why did you select the Rotary= in the first place?"
The answer to that centered around the practically bullet proof simpli= city of the design.
Why would you go to a power plant that is truly simple in design only = to complicate it with a Turbo?
 
That's my logic path for selecting the 20B vs. a 13B-Turbo
Either power plant will kick butt in a Long-EZ.
 
T Mann
 
 
 
From: "James Whitehurst flyboyusvi@gmail.com" <flyrota= ry@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:47 AM
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironlin= e.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbos.........
 

??? Above 10,000 ft? I couldn’t figure out how= … so I just received my Borg Warner EFR9280 Turbos with water and oi= l cooled ctr aluminum housing. I know its more complex but I figure I&rsquo= ;ll have the HP to 18,000’.   Comments enjoyed?   = ;James whitehurst

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: lehanover lehanover@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 9:47 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbos.........

 

As you can see on this dyno sheet much po= wer is available where most folks like to run aircraft Rotaries.

 

The ports you see in that picture are des= igned to operate best at 9,400 RPM, at 250HP, however that is a 12-A engine= .

2292 CCs vice 2900 CCs for a 13-B, so mor= e power from a 13-B. So ports designed for best power at say 5,500 RPM woul= d have a shorter top (Closing Point) and a smaller bridge opening. I do not= let any of the side seal ends to cross over the port so side seal damage i= s not a factor. So very nearly stock service life minus the wear you would = expect from spending hours of operation at full throttle. With synthetic 2 = cycle oil in the fuel and in the sump I suspect (but do not know) about 500= to 1,000 hours. A hot compression check or a hot

leakdown test will tell the tail.........= LEH 

 

In a message dated 8/28/2020 7:31:58 AM Eastern Stan= dard Time, flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes:

 

One word....Turbo normalizing. Ok that's two words, but th= at's my plan.

 

In your opinion, how reliab= le is a bridge port engine? At what RPM do you see the benefits?

Les Criscillo

Pilot, Brewmaster, Maker

3D""

From: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> on behalf o= f lehanover lehanove= r@aol.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 9:34:07 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> Subject:= [FlyRotary] Turbos.........

 

We don't= need no stinking turbos.....when we can have 250HP bridge ports......

 

Lynn E. Hanover

 

 --b82bd028719b4c9dab47dcbb15e9fb82-- --80a97f17558f41a794701448db8c2226 Content-Type: image/png; name="221F435F53E049A19D53606B9AB3106F.png" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="221F435F53E049A19D53606B9AB3106F.png" Content-ID: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAhsAAAAFCAYAAADsZC5/AAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAAARnQU1BAACx jwv8YQUAAAAJcEhZcwAADsMAAA7DAcdvqGQAAAA7SURBVGhD7dYxEQAwCAAx/JuqgipADN26sMKW v4uHj3OzAAC2mA0AYJXZAABW/dkISZKkwdpsAADMy3phFq5FQ27V4wAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --80a97f17558f41a794701448db8c2226--