X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ia0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5995007 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:53:46 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.169; envelope-from=david.staten@gmail.com Received: by mail-ia0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u20so7290237iag.14 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 06:53:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=cJLyZ59OZm53Nz7JvUFJ6waUAQc37vX3VbParjRIMtM=; b=dAEIdE5oLNGGWUuvalVzUdXI6AC4YvC7hfXNq6qIV9fjflNRJPLSF0fYln2C63qXTF QZ0E3i0zhpn+RF/KCmT5HeHFAcyECokBFofXntCcLa+CYvQA+8Qvx2SoC40DbEDBc2Sy tFieaKnjhqaGt1MwvjBaSFuOIGBaYkJaRjFir3wNytwdJizO1Gn2lL0af1/P1oi1rihu 7yGvRn4P3DTtZFccf3gaCOWkhvPH66hp4vmZ9qBURigr5VUs4XWpiZXdS7qYLfi32zz6 MI7rGmGMfUW37zupXS+nGTmxC+KBzPx649D2Ep4MYyTf0ymZ/eXap2N8u0ft6MOhKspi lPjA== X-Received: by 10.50.202.73 with SMTP id kg9mr45892463igc.51.1357311190824; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 06:53:10 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c-76-31-74-226.hsd1.tx.comcast.net. [76.31.74.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id as6sm47027493igc.8.2013.01.04.06.53.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Jan 2013 06:53:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50E6ECD2.1040308@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:53:06 -0600 From: Dave User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020706000604040102070205" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020706000604040102070205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stock turbo oil source on top of front iron, stock turbo oil return on the front cover/iron. Dont boost 10:1. Get low compression rotors. Even with intercooling, your turbo will increase your intake air temp very significantly, and eat into detonation margins. It only takes a few seconds to destroy your apex seals.. quicker than you can detect and react. On 1/3/2013 11:22 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote: > > How are the folks with turbos handling the plumbing? Where are you > picking up the pressurized oil and where/how do you return the oil to > the crankcase? I read in the install instructions that the oil drain > line should be one inch in diameter, return above oil level in the > crankcase, and have no traps in it. That doesn't seem possible with > the rotary?? How are you doing it? > > How far would it be safe to boost the Renesis with the compression at > 10:1? > > Where are you picking up the water for the water cooling of the turbo? > > Does anyone have any good pictures of the installation that shows > these things? > > B2 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Steven W. Boese > *Sent:* Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:53 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold > > 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 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 > if the atmospheric conditions haven't changed. At the highest MAP of > 21.5" shown on the chart for the NA 13B, the 13B HP is very close to > the HP of the Renesis at that same MAP. The test data on the chart > was generated as a first pass at assessing the suitability 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 what method did > you ascertain 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 more 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 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 stalled and the prop noise 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 5200, the noise was 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@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 > --------------020706000604040102070205 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stock turbo oil source on top of front iron, stock turbo oil return on the front cover/iron.

Dont boost 10:1. Get low compression rotors. Even with intercooling, your turbo will increase your intake air temp very significantly, and eat into detonation margins. It only takes a few seconds to destroy your apex seals.. quicker than you can detect and react.



On 1/3/2013 11:22 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:

How are the folks with turbos handling the plumbing?  Where are you picking up the pressurized oil and where/how do you return the oil to the crankcase?  I read in the install instructions that the oil drain line should be one inch in diameter, return above oil level in the crankcase, and have no traps in it.  That doesn’t seem possible with the rotary?? How are you doing it?

 

How far would it be safe to boost the Renesis with the compression at 10:1?

 

Where are you picking up the water for the water cooling of the turbo?

 

Does anyone have any good pictures of the installation that shows these things?

 

B2

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Steven W. Boese
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:53 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

 

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 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 if the atmospheric conditions haven't changed.  At the highest MAP of 21.5" shown on the chart for the NA 13B, the 13B HP is very close to the HP of the Renesis at that same MAP.  The test data on the chart was generated as a first pass at assessing the suitability 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 what method did you ascertain 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 more 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 <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 control 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 stalled and the prop noise 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 5200, the noise was 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@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

 

 


--------------020706000604040102070205--