X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4416258 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:40:02 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=sftDaJYnCpMA:10 a=fE7iQbIRAAAA:8 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=r1ClD_H3AAAA:8 a=QdXCYpuVAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=fp6tV5qiXr_I_UIvUVMA:9 a=_F-Vi7cex1Y-vQ5qPA4A:7 a=ouNWbAyjPe22WC2MAuR-cqMnoIMA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=-xSJPecES69N9jsFmxUA:9 a=0huJjh7pcOVl4Zt-KEMA:7 a=z6wz-kHb8vYJRExQo6ixzAgFdNAA:4 a=rC2wZJ5BpNYA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 75.181.123.159 Received: from [75.181.123.159] ([75.181.123.159:51735] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id 1B/32-03472-E27575C4; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:39:26 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Bad rotary week Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 19:39:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01CB327A.5F3B6CC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01CB327A.5F3B6CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I put 2 cycle oil into my gasoline (like most rotary fliers) to = eliminate the need for the rotary oil dispenser and having it consume = crankcase oil. I use approx 3/4 - 1 oz per gallon so for my 38 gallon = tanks I would use 38 oz of oil for a 4 - 5 hour flight - so right around = 1 quart. However, I have never needed to refill engine oil in my 500 = hours of flying which same can not be said for aircraft engines.=20 I didn't hear Dave's talk but disagree with comments regarding the 16X - = I personally believe it is better suited for aircraft use than the = current rotary engines for these reasons. 1. The torque has been double at all rpms - that means you can swing a = much larger prop (or multiblade prop) giving greater performance for = take off and climb 2. The displacement has been increased by 300 cc which is going to = improve power 3. The size of the rotor has been increased in diameter and narrowed = which should improve fuel efficiency. 4. The side housing will be all aluminum rather than cast iron saving = in weight. 5. There are others enhancements, but I think those are the ones of = most interest to aviators. my calculations indicates it should have no problem producing 220 HP = (possible more) at our typical aviation rpms. - so I am drooling for the = 16X, was hoping they would bring it out this year, but appears they will = not. =20 But, deciding to put a rotary (or any alternative engine) in your = aircraft is a big decision. So make certain you undertake the effort = for the reasons right for you. good luck Ed From: Dwayne Parkinson=20 Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:43 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Bad rotary week For anyone hoping that a 16X would show up any time soon: not ... gonna = ... happen. No RX7 and the RX8 is still powered by the Renesis for = 2011. http://www.mazdausamedia.com/content/2011-mazda-vehicles-glance As if that's not bad enough, when I was at Oshkosh I took in David = Atkins rotary seminar. I came away pretty depressed thinking that I = probably won't put a rotary engine in my airplane. Is everyone else = really using 1 quart of oil every 5 hours? He also didn't have much = good to say about the Renesis in an aviation application which leads me = to conclude that the 16X will fare even worse in aviation applications = as it is tweaked to meet higher EPA requirements and produce more low = end torque. Is anyone but Tracy using a Renesis? I'd really like to know what HP = you're getting, what the fuel burn is and how it's holding up. Thanks, Dwayne P.S. I couldn't find any rotary planes on the field at Oshkosh. = Perhaps they sank into the mud. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered http://www.andersonee.com http://www.eicommander.com Http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01CB327A.5F3B6CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
 I put 2 cycle oil into my gasoline = (like most=20 rotary fliers)  to eliminate the need for the rotary oil dispenser = and=20 having it consume crankcase oil.  I use approx 3/4 - 1 oz per = gallon so for=20 my 38 gallon tanks I would use 38 oz of oil for a 4 - 5 hour flight - so = right=20 around 1 quart.  However, I have never needed to refill engine oil = in my=20 500 hours of flying which same can not be said for aircraft=20 engines. 
 
I didn't hear Dave's talk but disagree with = comments=20 regarding the 16X - I personally believe it is better suited for = aircraft use=20 than the current rotary engines for these reasons.
 
1. The torque has been double at all rpms - that = means you=20 can swing a much larger prop (or multiblade prop) giving greater = performance for=20 take off and climb
2. The displacement has been increased by = 300 cc=20 which is going to improve power
3.  The size of the rotor has been = increased in=20 diameter and narrowed which should improve fuel efficiency.
4.  The side housing will be all aluminum = rather than=20 cast iron saving in weight.
5.  There are others enhancements, but I = think those=20 are the ones of most interest to aviators.
 
my calculations indicates it should have no = problem=20 producing 220 HP (possible more) at our typical aviation rpms. - so = I am=20 drooling for the 16X, was hoping they would bring it out this year, but = appears=20 they will not. 
 
But, deciding to put a rotary (or any = alternative engine)=20 in your aircraft is a big decision.  So make certain you undertake = the=20 effort for the reasons right for you.
 
good luck
 
Ed
 
 

From: Dwayne Parkinson
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:43 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Bad rotary week

For = anyone hoping=20 that a 16X would show up any time soon:  not ... gonna ... happen. =  No=20 RX7 and the RX8 is still powered by the Renesis for 2011.

= http://www.mazdausamedia.com/content/2011-mazda-vehicles-glance

As if = that's not bad=20 enough, when I was at Oshkosh I took in David Atkins rotary seminar. =  I=20 came away pretty depressed thinking that I probably won't put a rotary = engine in=20 my airplane.  Is everyone else really using 1 quart of oil every 5 = hours?=20  He also=20 didn't have much good to say about the Renesis in an aviation = application which=20 leads me to conclude that the 16X will fare even worse in aviation = applications=20 as it is tweaked to meet higher EPA requirements and produce more low = end=20 torque.

Is = anyone but Tracy=20 using a Renesis?  I'd really like to know what HP you're getting, = what the=20 fuel burn is and how it's holding up.

Thanks,

Dwayne

P.S. =  I=20 couldn't find any rotary planes on the field at Oshkosh.  Perhaps = they sank=20 into the mud.





Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
Http://www.dmack.net/mazda= /index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01CB327A.5F3B6CC0--