X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma03.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 5994057 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:44:16 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.41; envelope-from=argoldman@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.141]) by imr-ma03.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 02AE41C00004D for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:43:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-dsc001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dsc001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.253.65]) by mtaomg-da05.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id AF271E000088 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:43:40 -0500 (EST) References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: argoldman@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFB812877A2CB1_2798_115C9_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37276-STANDARD Received: from 67.184.50.137 by webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.92) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:43:40 -0500 Message-Id: <8CFB8128770A72D-2798-4D50@webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [67.184.50.137] Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:43:40 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1357249420; bh=I+XzKK+mrVugpnw9V/PRACk0T9/yFkVHyiu0f1I/LXk=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tEejEZbsCOOAgQkY5zYH+nhZU+eOP+t5sGdBkIxTgf5JKO2O7fHBgbE4BkuDWDl0h bw8FCZvEyc/pivQzBdIJgJjEFc1Oqt/PCp49OSLiZzxDDORdJw/WwCex5oRdnQFGXL f76DoDTfpYxRDiQzFvEWvoelILvvzANCkrpWrFRQ= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:434076160:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338d50e5fb8c5d58 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFB812877A2CB1_2798_115C9_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I had assumed that these were dynamometer results. By what method did you a= scertain the HP listed? Interesting results. If the blades stalled (overpowered) at such a low RPM = would it be correct to assume that at that RPM the engine was producing mor= e power than the non Renesis engines at the same RPM with the same prop??? I am so confused... interested also in perhaps turboing the renesis in the = future?? Please help Rich =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Steven W. Boese To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:55 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold Bobby, =20 I honestly don't know what the exhaust sound was like. The control panel f= or the test stand is on the opposite side from the exhaust outlet. Also, a= t RPM above 5200, the 3 blade Warp Drive prop was stalled and the prop nois= e was just deafening. I could feel what seemed to be ground vibrations in = my feet so testing higher power levels was disconcerting. At RPM below 520= 0, the noise was similar to having the GM diesel truck muffler on the NA 13= B. =20 Steve From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of = Bobby J. Hughes [bhughes@qnsi.net] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:33 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold Steve, =20 How did it sound without a muffler? I removed my belly muffler for a speed = run and it was not tolerable in the cockpit. Only picked up 1-2 mph so the = muffler is back on. =20 Bobby =20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFB812877A2CB1_2798_115C9_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I had assu= med that these were dynamometer results. By what me= thod did you ascertain the HP listed?

Interesting results. If the blades stalle= d (overpowered) at such a low RPM would it be correct to assume that at that RPM the engine was producing more power than the non Renesis engines at the sa= me RPM with the same prop???

I am so confused... interested also in pe= rhaps turboing the renesis in the future??

Please help

Rich



-----= Original Message-----
From: Steven W. Boese <SBoese@uwyo.edu>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:55 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

Bobby,
 
I honestly don't know what the exhaust sound was like.  The contr= ol panel for the test stand is on the opposite side from the exhaust outlet= .  Also, at RPM above 5200, the 3 blade Warp Drive prop was stall= ed and the prop noise was just deafening.  I could feel what seemed to be ground vibrations in my feet so testing h= igher power levels was disconcerting.  At RPM below 5200, the noise wa= s similar to having the GM diesel truck muffler on the NA 13B.
 
Steve
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on= behalf of Bobby J. Hughes [bhughes@qns= i.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:33 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

Steve,
 
How did it sound without a muffler? I re= moved my belly muffler for a speed run and it was not tolerable in the cock= pit. Only picked up 1-2 mph so the muffler is back on.
 
Bobby
 
 
 ----------MB_8CFB812877A2CB1_2798_115C9_webmail-d001.sysops.aol.com--