X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3528712 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:59:25 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.201.245.36; envelope-from=geryvon@videotron.ca MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_YVt0wBMAtrQrDcskXCOnQQ)" Received: from yvon ([66.130.84.106]) by VL-MO-MR002.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with SMTP id <0KG1006KYLTZ3AA0@VL-MO-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:58:49 -0500 (EST) Message-id: From: Yvon Cournoyer To: Fiset Raymond , ACRE , Rotary motors in aircraft , Cournoyer Alain References: Subject: ROTARY POWERED HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFTS - was - Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:58:31 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_YVt0wBMAtrQrDcskXCOnQQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable On documenting and advertising the performance of our Rotary powered = homebuilts.=20 I have been flying my Rotary powered (1986 - 13B) Zenair Zenith since = 26 February 1991.=20 I do not fly much nor very far, but I do fly, safely, so far.=20 I would contribute performance documentation for purpose of encouraging = the use of Wankel-Mazda type of Rotary engines in aircraft, when such a = website becomes available... Yvon Cournoyer=20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mike Wills=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:14 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane Dave, I remember looking at this when you posted about it previously. Not = sure a race is quite what I had in mind, but better than nothing. I = think documented performance numbers at typical cruise configurations = would be more useful. Cant argue with your bang for the buck numbers - = one of the primary reasons I went rotary as well. I still dont think = it's fair to claim an economy victory based on the price/use of Mogas = because you CHOOSE to burn it and your Lyc powered RV buddies CHOOSE not = to. I dont know about you guys but the typical questions/comments are: 1) It will weigh more than a Lyc powered RV (in my case true). 2) It will be slower and climb slower than a Lyc powered RV (the jury = is out in my case). 3) Those rotaries burn more gas than an aircraft engine. 4) You're crazy to fly behind a car engine. My responses to 1 and 2 are maybe, to 3 is it varies depending on how = its operated. My response to 4 depends on my mood and how the comment is = made. Anyway, it would sure be nice if a number of guys flying did as good a = job of documenting and advertising their performance as they do = documenting their build process. There are enough flying now to have = some statistical relevance. I'd like to be able to point to a website = when someone quizzes me on performance. Mike ----- Original Message -----=20 From: David Leonard=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:12 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane Hey Mike, I have done such a real world direct comparison. =20 We did a race where where were filled tanks before and after to = compare fuel burn as well as speed. Scroll down here to see the = results: http://www.rvproject.com/race.html Bear in mind: 1) the fastest 2 planes were tandem, and had an advantage. 2) the slowest 2 planes were trying to win the efficiency contest = rather than the speed contest. Of the 5 remaining planes, mine was right in the middle in terms of = speed and fuel burn. All other planes were 180 or 200 hp lycs with c/s = props. I had the only f.p. prop and my installation cost at least $15k = less than any of the others. Because I was the only one able to use = MOGAS, my fuel cost were the cheapest (of the non-economy flight profile = group). Bottom line: the rotary proved to be very comparable in terms of = power and fuel burn. (as others have noted). --------- I now have 370 hours and almost never remove the cowl anymore. I = fly it hard and put it away wet. I have not had an engine or engine = systems issue in nearly 200 hrs. =20 Compare that the the first 100 hrs where I was putting in almost 10 = hrs of maintenance for each our of flying and she has really come a long = way.=20 Way worth it! --=20 David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net http://RotaryRoster.net On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Mike Wills wrote: Glad I woke you guys up! :-) While it may appear from my post that I was trying to discourage = this guy and am not happy with my rotary powered airplane that is not = the case. I'm very happy with it. Will be even happier once I get all of = the little glitches fixed so I can just fly it. I simply wanted to make sure William understands what he's = getting into. What appears to be a fairly straight forward mod is a lot = more complicated than it appears and there are potential pitfalls that = are not necessarily obvious. My bad on the misread regarding fuel efficiency - he was talking = about homebuilt aircraft versus factory built planes, not rotaries = versus certified engines. I think he's still way off base here which was = why I replied to his post. Al, I dont know anyone who actually KNOWS what BSFC they acheive = with their Lyc/Cont. I know that low .40s is a published number that is = stuck in my head. I know what kind of fuel consumption I got with my Lyc = powered RV-6A at cruise and I know there are certainly enough flying Lyc = powered RVs to pretty firmly establish a cruise performance baseline. = Since there are more flying rotary powered RVs than other types, seems = like we should be able to get at least an idea of how they compare. Lets = challenge the rotary RV fliers here to post real cruise performance = (altitude, TAS, fuel consumption) and answer the question. Or give me a = year and 100 hours and I'll let you know how my RV-4 stacks up against = the -6A for a data point. As for your performance against conventional powered Velocities, = thats great news. I think thats one of the significant short comings of = our little group here. Common perception is that rotaries are gas hogs = and we dont do anything to accurately document and advertise our = performance. Mark, I agree that burning Mogas definitely makes a big = difference economy-wise. But that's a red herring. You could legally = burn Mogas in a Lyc/Cont also - just that most guys who are too = conservative to choose an auto conversion are also too conservative to = burn Mogas. Burning Mogas isnt the exclusive territory of the rotary. I = personally know a guy with a 200HP Lyc in an RV-8 who has burned Mogas = exclusively for years. Really what it comes down to is convenience and = comfort. Lets be fair, compare apples to apples, and while we're at it = throw in the additional cost and hassle of having to pour in 2 stroke = oil for your rotary (assuming you do that as most seem to do). I do totally agree with you on the price of parts. And that was = one of my huge motivations for going this route. But really the biggest = motivation was to do something a little different. When my RV-4 finally = makes it's appearance at a fly-in (hopefully this year) it's not going = to be lost in the sea of belly button RVs that show up. Mike Wills RV-4 N144MW ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Al Gietzen=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:51 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane I dont know where you got the idea that rotaries are more = fuel efficient. Lycosaurs/Continentals typically have BSFCs in the low = .40s. The commonly accepted number for a rotary is about .50. Some here = seem to do better, others worse.=20 Mike; I=92m not disagreeing with the points in your message; but I = am wondering if you know anybody actually flying a Lyc/Cont and = achieving BSFC in the low 40=92s. I see numbers like .43 or .45 bandied = about, but I guess no one leans enough when flying to get that for fear = of burning out a valve =96 or worse. I=92ve yet to hear from anyone = flying a Velocity like mine with a Lyc who can surpass the speed/fuel = burn that I get with the 20B. I don=92t know why =96 it surprised me; = but there it is. I think in the real world operation the BSFCs are comparable. = I may have a bit lower drag because of smaller cowl; or other factors. Al =20 --Boundary_(ID_YVt0wBMAtrQrDcskXCOnQQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
On documenting and advertising = the=20 performance of  our Rotary powered homebuilts. =
I have been flying my Rotary = powered (1986=20 - 13B)  Zenair Zenith since 26 February 1991. =
I do not fly much nor very = far, but I=20 do fly, safely, so far.
I would = contribute performance=20 documentation for purpose of encouraging the use of Wankel-Mazda type of = Rotary=20 engines in aircraft, when such a website becomes=20 available...
 
Yvon Cournoyer =
     
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mike = Wills
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 = 10:14=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Questions on=20 buying a rotary plane

Dave,
 
 I remember looking at this when = you posted=20 about it previously. Not sure a race is quite what I had in mind, but = better=20 than nothing. I think documented performance numbers at typical cruise = configurations would be more useful. Cant argue with your bang = for the=20 buck numbers - one of the primary reasons I went rotary as well. I = still dont=20 think it's fair to claim an economy victory based on the price/use of = Mogas=20 because you CHOOSE to burn it and your Lyc powered RV buddies CHOOSE = not=20 to.
 
 I dont know about you guys but = the typical=20 questions/comments are:
 
1) It will weigh more than a Lyc = powered RV (in=20 my case true).
2) It will be slower and climb slower = than a Lyc=20 powered RV (the jury is out in my case).
3) Those rotaries burn more gas than = an aircraft=20 engine.
4) You're crazy to fly behind a car=20 engine.
 
My responses to 1 and 2 are maybe, to = 3 is it=20 varies depending on how its operated. My response to 4 depends on my = mood and=20 how the comment is made.
 
Anyway, it would sure be nice if a = number of guys=20 flying did as good a job of documenting and advertising their = performance as=20 they do documenting their build process. There are enough flying now = to have=20 some statistical relevance. I'd like to be able to point to a website = when=20 someone quizzes me on performance.
 
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 David=20 Leonard
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 = 9:12=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Questions on=20 buying a rotary plane

Hey Mike,

I = have done=20 such a real world direct comparison. 

We did a race = where where=20 were filled tanks before and after to compare fuel burn as well as=20 speed.  Scroll down here to see the results:
http://www.rvproject.com/race= .html

Bear=20 in mind:
1) the fastest 2 planes were tandem, and had an = advantage.
2)=20 the slowest 2 planes were trying to win the efficiency contest = rather than=20 the speed contest.

Of the 5 remaining planes, mine was right = in the=20 middle in terms of speed and fuel burn.  All other planes were = 180 or=20 200 hp lycs with c/s props.  I had the only f.p. prop and my=20 installation cost at least $15k less than any of the others.  = Because I=20 was the only one able to use MOGAS, my fuel cost were the cheapest = (of the=20 non-economy flight profile group).

Bottom line: the rotary = proved to=20 be very comparable in terms of power and fuel burn. (as others have=20 noted).
---------
I now have 370 hours and almost never remove = the=20 cowl anymore.  I fly it hard and put it away wet.  I have = not had=20 an engine or engine systems issue in nearly 200 hrs.  =

Compare=20 that the the first 100 hrs where I was putting in almost 10 hrs of=20 maintenance for each our of flying and she has really come a long = way.=20

Way worth it!

--
David Leonard

Turbo = Rotary RV-6=20 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.nethttp://RotaryRoster.net


On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Mike Wills = <rv-4mike@cox.net> = wrote:
Glad I woke you guys up! = :-)
 
While it may appear from my post = that I was=20 trying to discourage this guy and am not happy with my rotary = powered=20 airplane that is not the case. I'm very happy with it. Will be = even=20 happier once I get all of the little glitches fixed so I can = just fly=20 it.
 
 I simply wanted to make = sure William=20 understands what he's getting into. What appears to be a fairly = straight=20 forward mod is a lot more complicated than it appears and there = are=20 potential pitfalls that are not necessarily obvious.
 
 My bad on the misread = regarding fuel=20 efficiency - he was talking about homebuilt aircraft = versus=20 factory built planes, not rotaries versus certified engines. = I think=20 he's still way off base here which was why I replied to his=20 post.
 
 Al, I dont know anyone = who=20 actually KNOWS what BSFC they acheive with their Lyc/Cont. I know = that low=20 .40s is a published number that is stuck in my head. I know = what kind=20 of fuel consumption I got with my Lyc powered RV-6A at = cruise and I=20 know there are certainly enough flying Lyc powered RVs to pretty = firmly=20 establish a cruise performance baseline. Since there are more = flying=20 rotary powered RVs than other types, seems like we should be able = to get=20 at least an idea of how they compare. Lets challenge the = rotary RV=20 fliers here to post real cruise performance (altitude, TAS, fuel=20 consumption) and answer the question. Or give me a year and 100 = hours and=20 I'll let you know how my RV-4 stacks up against the -6A for a data = point.
 
 As for your performance = against=20 conventional powered Velocities, thats great news. I think thats = one of=20 the significant short comings of our little group here. Common = perception=20 is that rotaries are gas hogs and we dont do anything to = accurately=20 document and advertise our performance.
 
 Mark, I agree that burning = Mogas=20 definitely makes a big difference economy-wise. But that's a red = herring.=20 You could legally burn Mogas in a Lyc/Cont also - just that most = guys who=20 are too conservative to choose an auto conversion are also too=20 conservative to burn Mogas. Burning Mogas isnt the exclusive = territory of=20 the rotary. I personally know a guy with a 200HP Lyc in an = RV-8 who=20 has burned Mogas exclusively for years. Really what it comes down = to is=20 convenience and comfort. Lets be fair, compare apples to = apples,=20 and while we're at it throw in the additional cost and hassle of = having to=20 pour in 2 stroke oil for your rotary (assuming you do that as most = seem to=20 do).
 
 I do totally agree with you = on the=20 price of parts. And that was one of my huge motivations for going = this=20 route. But really the biggest motivation was to do something a = little=20 different. When my RV-4 finally makes it's appearance at a fly-in=20 (hopefully this year) it's not going to be lost in the sea of = belly button=20 RVs that show up.
 
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW
 
 
-----=20 Original Message -----
From:=20 Al Gietzen
To:=20 Rotary motors in=20 aircraft
Sent:=20 Monday, March 02, 2009 9:51 PM
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane

 I dont = know where=20 you got the idea that rotaries are more fuel efficient.=20 Lycosaurs/Continentals typically have BSFCs in the low .40s. = The=20 commonly accepted number for a rotary is about .50. Some here = seem to=20 do better, others worse.

 

Mike;

 

I=92m not=20 disagreeing with the points in your message; but I am = wondering if you=20 know anybody actually flying a Lyc/Cont and achieving BSFC in = the low=20 40=92s.  I see numbers like .43 or .45 bandied about, but = I guess=20 no one leans enough when flying to get that for fear of = burning out a=20 valve =96 or worse.  I=92ve yet to hear from anyone = flying a=20 Velocity = like mine=20 with a Lyc who can surpass the speed/fuel burn that I get with = the=20 20B. I don=92t know why =96 it surprised me; but there it=20 is.

 

I = think in=20 the real world operation the BSFCs are comparable.  I may = have a=20 bit lower drag because of smaller cowl; or other=20 factors.

 

Al=20 =  



--Boundary_(ID_YVt0wBMAtrQrDcskXCOnQQ)--