Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.169.126] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 3112854 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:02:58 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:02:55 -0800 Received: from 64.159.105.196 by BAY3-DAV96.phx.gbl with DAV; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:02:55 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [64.159.105.196] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C drivetesting Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:02:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 7.02.0011.2700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0004_01C40FFD.39B237A0" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2004 16:02:55.0433 (UTC) FILETIME=[233F3390:01C41027] ------=_NextPart_001_0004_01C40FFD.39B237A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The -C drive has very different internals but I will look at the feasibil= ity of reworking the -B housing to receive the -C guts. I think it can b= e done. Yes, the -C bolts right up to the same adapter plate. I think = you are right about the 2.85 becoming the preferred ratio, but only if yo= u can handle the longer prop. You nose draggers have the advantage here= The more I fly it the better I like this setup. The higher rpm was very= disconcerting at first but I acclimated rapidly. And now that I have = digested the fact that the actual rpm difference at normally used throttl= e settings is only about 5%, I absolutely love it. Another good sign is t= hat the manifold pressure is now more than 5% lower at any given airspeed= that I've tested so far. Even if the wear rate is up 5% or so it would = be a non issue. =20 One more plus for the 2.85 is something I hesitate to mention. It's kind= of like the "engine making oil so I have to drain some out" thing, kind = of unbelievable. It makes sense that there would be less prop noise but= I'm also getting less engine noise. =20 I was getting tired of the increased noise with the Hushpower II muffler = and was almost ready to put the Spintech back on even though it costs at = least 5 - 6 mph in drag. But with the -C drive things have quieted down = substantially. I think part of the credit for this goes to the differenc= e in RPM moving the vibrations away from the resonance point of the sheet= metal panels in my RV-4 but even observers on the ground have mentioned = that the engine sounds quieter. =20 I better shut-up now, this is starting to sound too good to be true. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Anderson Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 8:30 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C drivetesti= ng Sounds great thus far, Tracy Imagine having so much thrust that you can't hold the aircraft still = for maximum static, must be tough {:>). If you initial observations hold= regarding fuel consumption and performance, then I predict the 2.85 will= soon become the standard. If the fuel burn/performance is a wash then o= nly engine wear from higher rpm might be a factor, but since the rotary s= eems to only have no/ minimum wear in any case, that probably will not be= a significant factor. So how much are you given for 2.17:1 trade ins? Seriously, will the B = model mounting plate accommodate the C model gear box housing (looks like= you mount it the same way). I presume it would not be so simple as swap= ping out the internals as I am certain the internal mounting/housing is d= ifferent in the two. Third, in case you consider getting rid of that ol= d performance prop, put me on top of your list. Ed ------=_NextPart_001_0004_01C40FFD.39B237A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The -C drive has very different internals= but I will look at the feasibility of reworking the -B housing to receiv= e the -C guts.  I think it can be done.   Yes, the -C bolt= s right up to the same adapter plate.  I think you are right about t= he 2.85 becoming the preferred ratio, but only if you can handle&nbs= p;the longer prop.   You nose draggers have the advantage here.=
 
The more I fly it the better I like this se= tup.   The higher rpm was very disconcerting at first but I acc= limated rapidly.   And now that I have  digested the = fact that the actual rpm difference at normally used throttle settin= gs is only about 5%, I absolutely love it. Another good sign is that the = manifold pressure is now more than 5% lower at any given ai= rspeed that I've tested so far.  Even if the wear rate is up 5% or s= o it would be a non issue. 
 
One more p= lus for the 2.85 is something I hesitate to mention.  It's kind of l= ike the "engine making oil so I have to drain some out" thing, kind of un= believable.   It makes sense that there would be less prop nois= e but I'm also getting less engine noise. 
 
=
I was getting tired of the increased noise with the Hushpower II muf= fler and was almost ready to put the Spintech back on even though it cost= s at least 5 - 6 mph in drag.  But with the -C drive things have qui= eted down substantially.  I think part of the credit for this goes t= o the difference in RPM moving the vibrations away from the resonance poi= nt of the sheet metal panels in my RV-4 but even observers on the ground = have mentioned that the engine sounds quieter.
&nbs= p;
I better shut-up now, this is starting to sound too go= od to be true.
 
Tracy
 
=
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 8= :30 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary= ] C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C drivetesting
&= nbsp;
Sounds great thus far, Tracy
 
  &nb= sp; Imagine having so much thrust that you can't hold the aircraft still = for maximum static, must be tough {:>).  If you initial observati= ons hold regarding fuel consumption and performance, then I predict the 2= 85 will soon become the standard.  If the fuel burn/performance is = a wash then only engine wear from higher rpm might be a factor, but since= the rotary seems to only have no/ minimum wear in any case, that pr= obably will not be a significant factor.
 
  So how much are y= ou given for 2.17:1 trade ins?  Seriously, will the B model mounting= plate accommodate the C model gear box housing (looks like you mount it = the same way).  I presume it would not be so simple as swapping out = the internals as I am certain the internal mounting/housing is different = in the two.   Third, in case you consider getting rid of that o= ld performance prop, put me on top of your list.
 
Ed
<= /BLOCKQUOTE> ------=_NextPart_001_0004_01C40FFD.39B237A0--