X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.186] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTPS id 3069438 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:02:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.186; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d58-105-122-139.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [58.105.122.139]) by mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id m7A61l1Z002666 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:01:50 +1000 Message-ID: <002701c8faae$988bee60$6400a8c0@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rebuild Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:01:54 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C8FB02.68A9E450" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080809-0, 09/08/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C8FB02.68A9E450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I won't bore you gentlemen by whinning on how I lost 3 years worth of rotary emails thanks to consumers Power Co. but I have. I didn't bother = to actually learn any of this because I planned on being able to look up = all the posts I had in separate files for every item on the engine. My = how things can change in 1 minute :((( Now I need to compile a list of what I need to ask to have done to my = RX-8 4-port engine to convert it to aircraft use. Including what flex = plate etc. It will be P-ported and hopefully use the bell housing being = developed on the "other" site. Unfortunately, many things on the "other" = site have gotten part way through development and fallen off the table = so we shall see :( If you gentlemen would be so kind as to just throw up a short list of = things you personally would have done I can compile a good list. Thank you very much, Randy Yes Randy, Larry's bellhousing is very good indeed - take it from = someone who has been through the exercise twice before. The biggest = benefit is that he can produce a very controlled mould and maintain the = wall thickness to the minimum. This is a good subject to bring up on = this site, so more builders are aware of it. BTW your not on your lonesome - we have all lost good info over the = years to computer crashers. For the RX8 I might look at a smaller inlet opening (44mm) if you = intend to use the RX8 apex seals. The seals are shorter in height and my = tend to flex (over the open hole) and go out of the inlet. Don't expect = too much from the Rx8 in regard to power as the very complex inlet = manifold optimumized the tuned effect and you can't use it in an = aircraft as it's too high. You should expect to see the same as you = would get out of an RX7. Hope that helps. George Hi George; I continue to hear this story about apex seals falling into the intake = and exhaust. There are almost 25 year old engines still running over stock ~1.9 = inch Pport exhausts (Far worse than the intake) with the old 3-piece seals. Even worse would be the 2.5"? RacingBeat = Pports. Do you know of any specific failure cases? Cheers Cary Cary, I understand your argument and I know of no specific case - neither am = I willing to take the chance. A smaller PP might be worth considering = the stock RX8 apex seals. Mazda went away from the 3 piece seals for = reasons of strength. I actually cut 3mm seal slots into my RX8 rotor. = Again their stronger and I'm running them over 44mm PP. George (down under) -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C8FB02.68A9E450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I won't bore you gentlemen by whinning on = how I=20 lost 3 years worth of
rotary emails thanks to consumers Power Co. but = I have.=20 I didn't bother to actually learn any of this because I planned on being = able to=20 look up all the posts I had in separate files for every item on the = engine. My=20 how things can change in 1 minute :(((

Now I need to compile a = list of=20 what I need to ask to have done to my RX-8 4-port engine to convert it = to=20 aircraft use. Including what flex plate etc. It will be P-ported and = hopefully=20 use the bell housing being developed on the "other" site. Unfortunately, = many=20 things on the "other" site have gotten part way through development and = fallen=20 off the table so we shall see :(

If you gentlemen would be so = kind as to=20 just throw up a short list of things you personally would have done I = can=20 compile a good list.

Thank you very much,

Randy

Yes Randy, Larry's bellhousing is very good indeed - take it = from=20 someone who has been through the exercise twice before. The biggest = benefit is=20 that he can produce a very controlled mould and maintain the wall = thickness to=20 the minimum. This is a good subject to bring up on this site, so more = builders=20 are aware of it.

BTW your not on your lonesome - we have all = lost good=20 info over the years to computer crashers.

For the RX8 I might = look at a=20 smaller inlet opening (44mm) if you intend to use the RX8 apex seals. = The=20 seals are shorter in height and my tend to flex (over the open hole) = and go=20 out of the inlet. Don't expect too much from the Rx8 in regard to = power as the=20 very complex inlet manifold optimumized the tuned effect and you can't = use it=20 in an aircraft as it's too high. You should expect to see the same as = you=20 would get out of an RX7.
Hope that helps.
George

Hi = George;
I=20 continue to hear this story about apex seals falling into the intake = and=20 exhaust.
There are almost 25 year old engines still running over = stock ~1.9=20 inch Pport exhausts (Far worse than the intake)
with the old = 3-piece=20 seals.  Even worse would be the 2.5"? RacingBeat Pports.
Do = you know=20 of any specific failure = cases?


Cheers
Cary

Cary,
I understand your argument and I know of no specific case - = neither=20 am I willing to take the chance. A smaller PP might be worth = considering the=20 stock RX8 apex seals. Mazda went away from the 3 piece seals for = reasons of=20 strength. I actually cut 3mm seal slots into my RX8 rotor. Again their = stronger and I'm running them over 44mm PP.
George (down under)

<= /CENTER>

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:  =20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C8FB02.68A9E450--