X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost01.isp.att.net ([207.115.11.51] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4416267 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:47:17 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.11.51; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-235-201-117.mco.bellsouth.net[74.235.201.117]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc01) with SMTP id <20100802234641H0100dos2me>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:46:41 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [74.235.201.117] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 19:46:43 -0400 Message-ID: <1DED8B28758142BB90A7727647114613@Desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01CB327B.6F59E680" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcsylFkBPGP6RmfiT4GswMXXQqYmGQAB2z8Q X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CB327B.6F59E680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dwayne, To get HP with the rotary you will need rpm. You should plan your take off to develop 7000-8000 rpm. That means Tracy's 2.85 PSRU and a climb prop. Most of us are using cruise props which will not work in your application. Or you could go with the electric MT con$tant speed prop to get the best of both worlds. It that rpm range, you can develop over 200 HP normally aspirated at low altitudes. If you are going to do high altitude takeoffs, you need a turbo or supercharger. I think John Slade has figured out the turbo for the rotary. Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dwayne Parkinson Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 6:44 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week Thanks for the quick reply. I'm building a Bearhawk (4 seat, high wing) on floats so the extra HP is needed especially for take off. I've looked extensively at using a 13B-REW to try to get the HP I need without adding the weight and unique parts of a 20B, but turbo installations seem to get eaten by exhaust heat. I'm unaware of anyone getting 100 hours out of a turbo. Is there anyone on the list who has more than 100 hours on their turbo? Thanks for the feedback!!! Dwayne _____ From: George Lendich To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 5:08:41 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week Dwayne, I had a feeling things weren't going to plan, however unless you need the extra power a 16X would deliver because of the larger eccentric and volume, the 13B is still a good choice IMHO. Give the volume is the same with the RX7 and RX8 the power is the same. If more power is needed then PP or Turbo is the answer. Personally I believe the best answers are in those driving enhancements in the 13B development for Aviation. I'm hoping Bill Jepson will be up and running with his lighter housings and PP design sooner rather than later. He's not saying much as I believe he wants to leave the talking to the testing results . George ( down under) 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. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CB327B.6F59E680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dwayne,

=

To get HP with the rotary you will = need rpm.  You should plan your take off to develop 7000-8000 rpm.  = That means Tracy’s 2.85 PSRU and a climb prop.  Most of us are using cruise props = which will not work in your application.  Or you could go with the electric MT = con$tant speed prop to get the best of both worlds.  It that rpm range, you = can develop over 200 HP normally aspirated at low altitudes.  If you = are going to do high altitude takeoffs, you need a turbo or supercharger.  I = think John Slade has figured out the turbo for the = rotary.

 

Bill B

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dwayne Parkinson
Sent: Monday, August 02, = 2010 6:44 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Bad rotary week

 

Thanks for the quick reply.  I'm building a Bearhawk (4 seat, high wing) on floats so the extra = HP is needed especially for take off.  I've looked extensively at using a 13B-REW to try to get the HP I need without adding the weight and unique = parts of a 20B, but turbo installations seem to get eaten by exhaust heat. =  I'm unaware of anyone getting 100 hours out of a turbo.  Is there = anyone on the list who has more than 100 hours on their = turbo?

 

Thanks for the = feedback!!!

 

Dwayne<= font face=3DArial>

 

From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 = 5:08:41 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Bad rotary week

Dwayne,

I had a feeling things weren't going to plan, however = unless you need the extra power a 16X would deliver because of the  larger eccentric and volume, the 13B is still a good choice = IMHO.

Give the volume is the same with the RX7 and RX8 = the power is the same. If more power is needed then PP or Turbo is the = answer.

Personally I believe the best answers are in those = driving enhancements in the 13B development for Aviation. I'm hoping Bill Jepson = will be up and running with his lighter housings and PP design sooner rather = than later. He's not saying much as I believe he wants to leave the talking = to the testing results .

George ( down under)

 

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.

 

 

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<= font face=3DArial>

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_001E_01CB327B.6F59E680--