Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au
Message-ID: <CAFBB789AC014AECACECCA31D6FFBD47@ownerf1fc517b8>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@aanet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-3681392@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Taildragger Power Requirements
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:37:29 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ed & Rick,
The RX8 is good, I am using some parts in my single rotor development, 
however but the earlier engine housing are  much easier to P-port, which 
would give the 200+ power you are looking for. Sure, Turbo will give you the 
additional as well, but so far I'm not sure we have sorted out all the Turbo 
problems other than for normalizing at altitude.

Then again there are differences of opinion on P-port sizing, some say 2" , 
however I tend to believe the Powersport direction of 44mm give sufficient 
breathing for the RPM we are dealing with and has some additional velocity 
for better VE (volumetric efficiency).
George (down under)

> Hi Rick,
>
> I've flown with both an 86 N/A(Naturally Aspired) engine and a 91 Turbo
> Block (sans turbo).  I switched from the 86 to the turbo block for several
> of reasons (don't know if they were all valid).
>
> 1.  The Turbo block intake ports did not have the auxillary secondary 
> valve
> to deal with (as did the 86 N/A block) and were simpler to 'Street port".
>
> 2.  The turbo block exhaust port did not have the "splitter" as the 86 
> did.
> Reports show the splitter knocks 8db off the noise level - which means it
> also knocks off some power - how much is the (still) big question).  The
> downside is without the turbo, the turbo block is much nosier than N/A
> blocks with the exhaust splitter.  So if you live/fly in a noise sensitive
> area you might want to either stay away from the turbo block (sans turbo) 
> or
> be prepared for some serious muffling.
>
> 3. I had read that the coolant galleys of the turbo were "better" designed
> as the turbo block had to get rid of more heat due to its higher power.
> Again, I have not ever found a credible Mazda source for this claim
>
> 4.  The Turbo rotors have a bit less compression than the N/A rotors, so I
> replaced the turbo rotors with the "higher" compression 9.7:1 N/a Rotor -
> again to gain a small increase in power.  The downside was of course the
> additional expense.
>
> With just a bit of attention to the induction and exhaust systems, you
> should be able to get 160 HP without heroic efforts.  Remember we 
> generally
> operate at lower rpm ranges than an all-out rotary racer - therefore 
> produce
> less HP.  With some careful attention to the induction system, high
> compression rotors, perhaps some street porting - 170 -180 HP are possible
> with the older 13B.
>
> If I were doing it today, I would without question go with the Renesis.  A
> bit more power, bit newer block, no spare parts problem, etc.  On the 
> other
> hand, if you have a ready to roll older 13B then I would not hesitate to 
> use
> it.
>
> Ed
>
> Ed Anderson
>
> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
>
> Matthews, NC
>
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
> http://www.andersonee.com
>
> http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
>
> http://www.flyrotary.com/
>
> http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
>
> http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
> Behalf Of Rick Van Camp
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:10 PM
> To: Rotary motors in aircraft
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Taildragger Power Requirements
>
> All,
>
> I'm new here, been on AREN for a few years and was encouraged to join
> this list by John Slade.  Many thanks John it looks like there are many
> practical owners and builders here.
>
> I have had numerous thoughts on which aircraft and rotary engine
> configuration during the recent weeks.  The complication that changes
> all of this is my desire to see wilderness and teach my toddler aged son
> to appreciate it properly.  For me this translates into a need for a
> float plane.
>
> Consider the Stinson 108-2 as a candidate aircraft.  The power output
> that works well in this aircraft is the 210 TCM IO-360 fuel injected
> 6-cylinder.  This gives me a baseline target which the 13B should
> readily be able to achieve.  The difficulty is I hear what I
> (subjectively) think is too much mysticism regarding obtaining power
> levels out of the 13B.  Am I missing something?
>
> The other complication is I like what I read about the Turbo-II 13B from
> 1989(?) to 1991.  Maybe as early as 1987; I'm uncertain.  I like this
> engine package because it produces good power from the OEM and it
> features what should be some useful components for the job.  I really
> like the comments I've read regarding the turbo charger reduces the
> engine noise level.
>
> Please advise.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
> signature
> database 3267 (20080714) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
> signature
> database 3267 (20080714) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>