X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from willowsprings.uwyo.edu ([129.72.10.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5994145 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:53:51 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=129.72.10.31; envelope-from=SBoese@uwyo.edu Received: from ponyexpress-ht5.uwyo.edu (extlb.uwyo.edu [172.26.4.4]) by willowsprings.uwyo.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r03Mr7r1016110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:53:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from SBoese@uwyo.edu) Received: from ponyexpress-hb1.uwyo.edu (10.84.66.35) by ponyexpress-ht5.uwyo.edu (10.84.66.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:53:07 -0700 Received: from ponyexpress-m10.uwyo.edu ([fe80::60dd:cb9e:6f71:3d48]) by ponyexpress-hb1.uwyo.edu ([fe80::bc1d:430c:f399:767d%13]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:53:07 -0700 From: "Steven W. Boese" To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold Thread-Index: AQHN6fuAne6OobBr/E+sQny8HrhBq5g4KPU+ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:53:07 +0000 Message-ID: <3E8191F276108F4481AB0721BBA9269E05ED28AD@ponyexpress-m10.uwyo.edu> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [75.228.158.173] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3E8191F276108F4481AB0721BBA9269E05ED28ADponyexpressm10u_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_3E8191F276108F4481AB0721BBA9269E05ED28ADponyexpressm10u_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rich, A load cell was installed on one side of the engine mount to measure torque= . HP was calculated from the torque and the RPM. Most installations with = a Renesis engine appear to be using a higher gear ratio than the 2.18:1 rat= io of the reduction drives that I have. This lowers the limit the of engin= e RPM that I am able to achieve with a prop suitable for flight. The HP required to turn the prop at a given static RPM does not change if t= he atmospheric conditions haven't changed. At the highest MAP of 21.5" sho= wn on the chart for the NA 13B, the 13B HP is very close to the HP of the R= enesis at that same MAP. The test data on the chart was generated as a fir= st pass at assessing the suitability of turbocharging the Renesis compared = to the 13B engine. None of the configurations should be considered to be o= ptimized. Steve Boese RV6A, 1986 13B NA, RD1A, EC2 ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of = argoldman@aol.com [argoldman@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:43 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold 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 -----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, 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. 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, 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. Bobby --_000_3E8191F276108F4481AB0721BBA9269E05ED28ADponyexpressm10u_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rich,

 

A load cell was installed on one side of the engine mount to measure tor= que.  HP was calculated from the torque and the RPM.  Most instal= lations with a Renesis engine appear to be using a higher gear ratio than t= he 2.18:1 ratio of the reduction drives that I have.  This lowers the limit the of engine RPM that I am able = to achieve with a prop suitable for flight.

 

The HP required to turn the prop at a given static RPM does not change i= f the atmospheric conditions haven't changed.  At the highest MAP of 2= 1.5" shown on the chart for the NA 13B, the 13B HP is very close to th= e HP of the Renesis at that same MAP.  The test data on the chart was generated as a first pass at assessing the suit= ability of turbocharging the Renesis compared to the 13B engine. =  None of the configurations should be considered to be optimized.=  

 

Steve Boese
RV6A, 1986 13B NA, RD1A, EC2

     

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary= @lancaironline.net] on behalf of argoldman@aol.com [argoldman@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

I had= assumed that these were dynamometer results. By wh= at method 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 same 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@lancair= online.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,
 
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
 
 
--_000_3E8191F276108F4481AB0721BBA9269E05ED28ADponyexpressm10u_--