X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTP id 4416292 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:40:39 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (mail.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.34]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25598173665 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:40:02 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 596E0BEC023 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:40:01 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <21D2FB10FC2442DD9F018F327D3EA13E@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:40:12 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01CB32F8.408C3600" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100802-1, 08/02/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CB32F8.408C3600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dwayne, Ed Anderson could put this better than I, but the large flat surface of = the rotor cools more quickly than a piston crown, this reduced heat = doesn't help with atomization for the most effective burn of fuel. This = coupled with the squish areas at the ends of the rotor extinguish the = flame front resulting in unburned fuel remaining in the combustion area. = The RX7 13B engine spat that out the PP exhaust - not good for EPA = standards. The RX8 engine pushed the fuel into the next combustion = event, which helped with EPA standards. The 16X engine has a narrower = rotor, that means less surface area ( more heat -better combustion) = which is coupled with a larger displacement - more power, better fuel = economy better environmentally. Hope that helps and I agree with all that you say - especially the last = sentence. George ( down under) Excellent points on the 16X. I don't know enough about rotary engines = to know what "bad" will happen by redesigning the rotor and all the = little tweaks. All Dave said about the 16X is that Mazda is "dancing = with the EPA." The implication was that they would do things to the = engine that would make it less than ideal for an aviation application = simply to meet EPA mandates. I guess we wait and see. Regarding the reasons I'm putting an auto conversion in my plane: 1) I want to know my engine inside and out and have as much faith in = it as I have in the rest of the plane that I build. 2) It's cold in the winter up here and I like heat in the cabin. 3) It's cold in the winter up here and I don't like shock cooling. 4) It's cold in the winter up here and I really don't like = pre-heating. 5) I don't want to worry about what's going to happen to 100LL next = year. 6) The acquisition cost can be spread out over time. 7) Maintenance costs are lower. and most importantly.... just so I can hear "I'd feel a lot safer = flying behind a good old reliable airplane engine" about 100,000 times = :) Dwayne -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Ed Anderson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 6:39:07 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week 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_0011_01CB32F8.408C3600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dwayne,
Ed Anderson could put this better than = I, but=20 the large flat surface of the rotor cools more quickly than a = piston crown,=20 this reduced heat doesn't help with atomization for the most effective = burn of=20 fuel. This coupled with the squish areas at the ends of the rotor = extinguish the=20 flame front resulting in unburned fuel remaining in the combustion area. = The RX7=20 13B engine spat that out the PP exhaust - not good for EPA standards. = The RX8=20 engine pushed the fuel into the next combustion event, which helped with = EPA=20 standards. The 16X engine has a narrower rotor, that means less surface = area (=20 more heat -better combustion) which is coupled with a larger = displacement - more=20 power, better fuel economy better environmentally.
Hope that helps and I agree with all = that you say -=20 especially the last sentence.
George ( down under)
Excellent points on the 16X.  I don't know enough about = rotary=20 engines to know what "bad" will happen by redesigning the rotor and = all the=20 little tweaks.  All Dave said about the 16X is that Mazda is = "dancing=20 with the EPA."  The implication was that they would do things to = the=20 engine that would make it less than ideal for an aviation application = simply=20 to meet EPA mandates.  I guess we wait and see.

Regarding the reasons I'm putting an auto conversion in my = plane:

1)  I want to know my engine inside and out and have as much = faith=20 in it as I have in the rest of the plane that I build.
2)  It's cold in the winter up here and I like heat in the=20 cabin.
3)  It's cold in the winter up here and I don't like shock=20 cooling.
4)  It's cold in the winter up here and I really = don't like=20 pre-heating.
5)  I don't want to worry about what's going to happen to = 100LL next=20 year.
6)  The acquisition cost can be spread out over time.
7)  Maintenance costs are lower.

and most importantly.... just so I can hear "I'd feel a lot safer = flying=20 behind a good old reliable airplane engine" about 100,000 times = :)

Dwayne

From: Ed Anderson=20 <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 = 6:39:07=20 PM
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re:=20 Bad rotary week

 
 
 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=20 for my 38 gallon tanks I would use 38 oz of oil for a 4 - 5 hour = flight - so=20 right around 1 quart.  However, I have never needed to refill = engine oil=20 in my 500 hours of flying which same can not be said for aircraft = 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=20 you can swing a much larger prop (or multiblade prop) giving greater=20 performance for 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=20 than cast iron saving in weight.
5.  There are others enhancements, but I = think=20 those 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=20 appears they will not. 
 
But, deciding to put a rotary (or any = alternative=20 engine) in your aircraft is a big decision.  So make certain you=20 undertake the 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=20
Subject: [FlyRotary] Bad rotary week

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


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

Is = anyone but=20 Tracy using a Renesis?  I'd really like to know what HP you're = getting,=20 what the 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=20 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_0011_01CB32F8.408C3600--