Dwayne,
I have over 250 hrs on my current turbo, and I think I have identified the problem as running EGT at peak all the time. Now I keep the EGT under 910C (about 1620F I think) and I have a reasonable number of hours and counting.
That being said, if you want to run 250+ h.p. for anything more than just take off, you would do best to put in a 3-rotor. There are not many unique parts and most of those will likely outlast any aircraft use.
I never burn ANY measurable oil other than the 2-stroke oil I add to the gas. I dont have an oil hatch on my cowl, and dont check oil level on pre-flight. (but I do have an eletric oil level sensor in case it leaks out or something crazy)
BTW, I would not trust anything that D. Atkins says. He cost me more time and money in my project than I care to mention. IMHO, he will tell you anything to make a sale.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Dwayne Parkinson <dwayneparkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
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 <lendich@aanet.com.au>
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
P.S. I couldn't find any rotary planes on the field at Oshkosh. Perhaps they sank into the mud.
|