Here is a shot of the Intercooler. It is only installed<= /a> with tie wraps currently, but is located where I will mount it. H= eck, the plumbing holds it pretty securely . Yes, that is a sto= ck Mazda intercooler. It is installed pretty well, if not too pretty. Air will be ducted from my arm pit scoops.&= nbsp; I have installed the cowling and it all fits....barely. The&nbs= p;aluminum tube going from the intercooler to the intake is a "= just fit"

Sorry about the poor quality. While amazing all the things moder= n cell phones can do, mine, only takes ok pictures (geesh , wh= o would have thought 50 years ago a phone would take ANY pictures <g>= )

Chris Barber

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary= @lancaironline.net] on behalf of Chris Barber [cbarber@texasattorney.net] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:26 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary HP revisited

When I ordered my prop from IVO I pretty much had them sen= d me exactly what John had. He actually said..."you want what Jo= hn Slade has?" At the time, IIRC, it was a 68" at th= e time so that is what I believe I currently have.

I too have the 2.17 redrive. I hav yet to ord= er the module from IVO for it to regulate RPM. May do so = soon.

John,

I think you and I have the same aspect ratio of 96 (?). My first= start with the turbo was with a six pound spring but on advice of a truste= d friend who has more experience, I replaced it with a three pound spring t= o start out with. It was the three pound spring that I ran yesterday. We are thinking that minor boost should= be a better starting point and reduce potential problems. Should we want m= ore later and determine it is prudent, we can increase it. The "= Performance" wastegate comes with various springs that can be used individually or in combination from as low as 1.5= lbs upt to 25 lbs + (I believe).

The wastegate is located behind the turbo. See the a= ttached photo. Since this shot was taken about two weeks ago, I have = replaced the blue oil line with a stainless one with a 90 degree fitting.&n= bsp; I have also fabricated and installed an additional weight support to bear some of the load off of the turbo manifold.

I will post more pictures in separate emails so not go over size = limits.

Chris Barber

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary= @lancaironline.net] on behalf of John Slade [jslade@canardaviation.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:40 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary HP revisited

Hi Kelly,
My IVO is 66 (I found 68 gave too little ground clearance), 3 blade and the= higher pitch.
Yes, it's a 2.17.
Regards,
John

Kelly Troyer wrote:

John ,

What is your "IVO" diame= ter, number of blades and are your blades the 30 to 90 or 45 to105 deg= ree pitch ? If I

remember correctly you have the 2.17 to 1 RD1B gearbox...........= ......

Kelly Troyer
"Dyke Delta"_13B ROTARY Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"Mistral"_Backplate/Oil Manifold
From: John Slade <jslade@canardaviation.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircra= ft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, May 27, 2010 8:4= 4:43 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ro= tary HP reviisted....now that I know more about it all...kinda.

Hi Ed, Chris,
That all makes sense, but I can add something from experience with the IVO = prop - The minimum pitch setting seems to optimum for take-off power. When = I changed from a big fixed pitch prop to an IVO at minimum pitch the differ= ence in acceleration was very marked. I have never taken off with the pitch at a higher setting than minimum, so= I can't attest to the effect, but if you forget to put the pitch on full f= ine on the downwind, a go-around is much less doable.

Something else about the IVO that might help, Chris, is that when you throt= tle back on final the airplane will want to slow down quite quickly. This i= s somewhat unexpected if you're used to a fixed pitch prop that tends to ma= ke the airplane float on final. The combination of fine pitch at idle, both rudders and the landing brake = make a Cozy (or Velocity I would think) come down like an elevator.

One way to check that you have enough power would be to measure how much ru= nway you use to reach, say, 70kts. If it's more than 2000' I'd say you're u= nder powered. With a turbo and an IVO the acceleration should feel like a g= ood sports car, and the increase from 70 kts to flying speed will only take a few seconds.
My 2c.
John

to Ed Anderson wrote:

No easy answer = =96 to all the nuances of producing power, Chris.

&= nbsp;

200 HP is a pos= sibility depending on lots of factors (like your total induction system set= up, however, I believe that 180 HP is more in line with the likely maximum on the older 13B. The Renesis a bit = more/

&= nbsp;

Fuel flow is as= much an indication of power as anything short of a dyno and/or extensive a= ircraft performance numbers.

&= nbsp;

RPM (in m= y opinion) has too many variables =96 like I have a 74x88 prop with a= 2.85:1 gearbox and can turn 6000-6200 rpm static =96 does that mean I am making more or less HP than you at 6200 rpm at 35=94 Hg.&nb= sp; It all depends on what prop load each of our engines are seeing at that= rpm. Generally as a rough rule of thumb you can= figure 10 hp per gallon/hour of fuel flow. So it you have a fuel flo= w of 16 gallon/hour then your engine could be producing around 160 HP. = ; 18 GPH =3D 180 HP, etc. Now your power won=92t be more than that, but it could be less. The rotary can flow conside= rably more fuel without making useful power than a piston engine, but it is= a useful rule of thumb.

&= nbsp;

I street ported= my 91 Turbo block myself using a Mazdatrix street port template. I w= ent through 5 intake designs and several muffler experiments before finding one that appear to give me the power I wanted.&= nbsp; On a cold morning with OAT < 50F, I can get up to 6200 rpm and 18-= 20 GPH fuel flow with the 74x88 prop. So I feel I have my set up just= about as good as its going to get =96 short of a forced induction system.

&= nbsp;

With your prop = set at max fine pitch, you have reduced the prop load on your engine = to a minimum =96 that permits your rpm to be at a maximum =96 but, that does NOT= mean you are producing the power and more importantly - the thrust needed for safe flig= ht.

&= nbsp;

Don=92t b= e mislead by rpm. As an extreme example to make my point, Without a prop (almost no l= oad) my engine will turn 5500 rpm at idle throttle setting =96 but I am onl= y flowing something like 1.5 =96 2 GPH which means producing something like= 15-20 HP even though the rpm without prop is higher than my static was when I had my old 68x72 with a 2.17:1 ge= ar box. So even though the rpm is the same or slightly greater,= the engine not making any where near the 150-160 HP I made with the = prop on at the same rpm. Fuel flow is not a perfect indicator but much more useful than RPM alone in estimating your power par= ticularly with a variable pitch prop.

&= nbsp;

This is importa= nt, Chris. Years ago, there was a long EZ builder who had a non-rotar= y auto engine who unfortunately ended his first flight in a fatal crash into a cactus plant. He understood the elect= ronics just fine, but did not understand the relationship between rpm and t= hrust. He set his adjustable pitch prop for maximum RPM =96 which mean = minimum prop load, which in= his case mean minimum thrust. He ma= naged to get airborne with this limited thrust, but could not apparently cl= imb out of ground effect with the flight ending on impact with a cactus.

&= nbsp;

For examp= le, you would get your highest rpm with a prop that absolutely no pitch whi= ch would produce minimum load on the engine =96 however, I think you would agree there would not be much =93push/Pull=94 by such a = prop set up. With a variable pitch prop, you need to find the optimum= balance between rpm and thrust. Too much rpm could indicate too litt= le pitch (and too little thrust), too low rpm could indicate too much pitch (and too little thrust) =96 neither conditio= n gives you maximum thrust.

&= nbsp;

The only way I = can think of to find that optimum balance between rpm and thrust is to atta= ch your airframe through a scale to an anchor. Then measure the pull on the scale at various rpm and prop pitch settings.= This should help you find where combination of engine rpm and prop p= itch provides maximum thrust (at least maximum static thrust =96 which is a= good start). Perhaps someone else can offer a better and easier method. Yes, you should be able to get a f= eel during taxi test =96 although some folks frown on the idea of high-spee= d taxi test. Theoretically you could use an accelerometer, some accur= ate speed measurements the weight of your aircraft and calculate the effective HP =96 that has been done with automobiles.

&= nbsp;

In cases were f= olks are using fixed pitch props with parameters similar to those use= d by others, you can make a comparison and get a rough feel for engine performance based on RPM. Unfortunately, wit= h a variable pitch prop making such comparisons is more difficult and quest= ionable. Now if you can find someone using the same variable pitch pr= op you are using and compare your rpm and prop settings, that is certainly something worth checking into.

&= nbsp;

Just continue t= o ask these kinds of questions and to think about the issues in producing p= ower and thrust =96 you=92ll be ready.

&= nbsp;

Ed

&= nbsp;

.

&= nbsp;

Ed Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary P= owered

Matthews, NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.anderso= nee.com

http://= www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://w= ww.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From:= Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Chris Barber Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 20= 10 9:51 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircra= ft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Rotary= HP reviisted....now that I know more about it all...kinda.

I know this= must have been discussed, but perhaps more in passing or in some of Tracy = 's literature (now kinda dated, especially with some of the strides he continues to make), but what is the convention= al wisdom as to rotary horsepower? I know when I first started lookin= g into it, oh many years ago, it seemed the impression I got was that you c= ould pretty easily achieve 200 hp, however, that is now a bit lower. Some of the tricks to get the higher HP was= mild and medium porting, bridge, "J" and "P" porting.&= nbsp; Then there was the option of turbo...the one, in combination with a m= edium street port, I chose.

What say Ye= ?

When starte= d today, mine was turning about 6200 rpm at 35 MP (with a 3 lb spring in th= e wastegate).....it surged forward against the chocks and breaks. IVO prop full fine. Nice feel of power e= ven if it likes to heat up fast in 90 degree weather like this.

Also, I thi= nk this was discussed before too, when I go WOT my engine develop= s up to about 6250 rpm, but then drops a couple/few hundred rpm to usually just under 6000....sometimes just above. Thou= ghts? Ed, (perhaps Al)it seems you may have chimed in before. R= egrettably, when I search the archives I tend to get frustrated due to= thread drift.

I heard a l= ot about porting when I was initially investigating all this and I chose to= use a medium street port. I let Mazdatrix do the work. That being said, I have read all but nothing on others = porting their engines (other than a LOT from PL on P ports). Since st= andard porting does not reportedly effect reliability, only, potentially lo= w low idle (I can idle as low as about 1300 rpm when warm smoothly) why is it not discussed and/or utilized more?

Just curiou= s guys/gals. Discuss <g>

All the bes= t,

Chris Barbe= r

Houston, GS= OT

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyro= tary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of Ed Anderson [eanderson@carolina.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 20= 10 5:15 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircra= ft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Em= ailing: 3 view w-10 003, first flight

Always loved th= e lines of a Tailwind =96 in fact, I have the plans and license to build a = W-10 sitting on my book shelf. Unfortunately, I doubt I=92ll ever get around to it.<= span style=3D"COLOR: black">

Ok with thermos= tat in the system holding it at 190F =96 we really won=92t know how much re= serve capacity you have in your cooling system until the power goes up.

I agree with Ge= orge, 200HP out of an N/A 13B is really pushing it. I think 180HP is = a more realistic expectation =96 but, hey you never know. It amazing how power goes up when things come together.=

Enjoy and fly s= afe.

Ed Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary P= owered

Matthews, NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.anderso= nee.com

http://= www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.co= m/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.= rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:f= lyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 20= 10 2:36 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircra= ft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Emaili= ng: 3 view w-10 003, first flight

My most humbl= e thank you to flyrotary and all you fine folks that have helped bring= my project to flight. Ed and many others whom I won't try to name here because I would miss many. The plane is a W= ittman Tailwind W-10, empty wt. is 981 and it is a tri-gear, Wt. is w= ithin 6 #'s of similar trikes w/ 0-320 engines. I have the thermostat= in the engine because most of the year it is not very hot, if we get 50 days with the temperature over 70, we have had a ho= t summer, not a lot of beach bunny activity. 7-1 I'll be 74 and have = realized my dream, now it's all gravy. Again, thanks guys!! Joh= nD<= /font>

Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link att= achments:
3 view w-10 003

-- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://m= ail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.=
html