|
Mark,
I'm wondering about the 16X or the 16X Mark 2, and
what that will give in regard to hp. May be impractical to go the 3 rotor
with the 16X , although anything is doable, but it sure would be a nice
weight and may be your answer with boosted hp for TO and climb.
From memory ( and that's not a good thing) I
believe their looking at the 70mm and 76mm rotor width - something to do how the
flame front is affected in the narrow housing. I'm wondering how the HP stands
up without a very complex inlet manifold.
I have seen some photo's on the internet and if
they are indeed 16X prototypes they look very similar to the 13B Renesis with a
narrow rotor- something to do with increased thermal efficiency with the narrow
rotor. My guess is that there is a reduced squish area with a narrow rotor as
well. Personally I would have liked a wider rotor, however emissions
priorities have it over straight power in the current climate.
Just thinking out aloud!
Has anyone got any additional info on the new
engine?
George ( down under)
George,
Yes, at 7500 max rpm, I probably won't see 375hp. And at my normal
cruise rpm of 5200, I'll be lucky to see 300hp. But that is why I'm
building the pport, for that little extra over the side port n/a engine.
I do have a ram-air system, but it only provides about 1/2" MAP boost.
So, I'll take what I get. I anticipate the pport engine will be lighter
due to a simplified intake and a new exhaust. If I can shave 10-15#,
then a turbo could also be in my future.
In reality, I can hit VNE with the present motor,
so any hp beyond what I have now is not good for much
except higher climb rates.
Mark
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
wrote:
Mark,
I notice your Hp requirements for the 20B,
which is 125hp per rotor. This exactly what I'm aiming for in a single rotor
application, but would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's all I
got.
Given that the motor can only gulp so much fuel
and air and HP is dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our case. Are you
considering any forced induction other than tuned inlet .
I've opted to use the RX8 high compression
rotor to give me some addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to give
higher inlet velocity, however my maths indicate even with this
arrangement, 125hp might be out of the question. Certainly higher RPM would
solve the problem, but that's not available with reduction ratio I'm
considering and many are using, might get to 7,500 but that's
it.
George ( down under)
George,
Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling my
current engine. But I am building a P-port 20B to replace
this motor downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 =
300). The Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x 11 x
3). Close enough for government work.
Mark
|