Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.237.223; envelope-from=nghthwk@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <50E70FDD.5050800@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:22:37 -0800
From: Cedric Gould <nghthwk@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold
References: <list-5995334@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5995334@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

WRT turbocharging a Renesis, has anyone considered turbo-normalizing 
(boosting to a MAP no greater than 30") as a method to avoid detonation 
and maintaining power at altitude?

-Cedric Gould

On 1/4/2013 8:59 AM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote:
> Bill,
>
> The rear iron housing feed is not drilled but can be. Mine was tapped
> and plugged during assembly. You could also feed from the oil galley at
> or below the filter pad. Might be able to use the stock oil pressure
> sender port. Not sure about the return with a stock oil pan. I have a
> deep pan and can keep 4.5 quarts below the oil return fitting in both
> climb and decent attitudes. I added and plugged an oil return last year
> in case I decide to swap out the super charger for a turbo. I think you
> can safely boost the renesis 10:1 rotors with 3-4 pounds as long as your
> intake charge is cooled and you don’t have a lean fuel condition. I run
> 38-40” MP for takeoff and initial climb. No intercooler but I do use
> water injection for a safety margin.
>
> The table below may contain errors and is a work in progress. I believe
> an effective turbo system would need to be capable of producing 6-7
> pounds to provide enough exhaust flow at altitudes up to 18K. The turbo
> surge line becomes a problem with cruise rpm and higher pressure ratios.
> An intercooler appears to be necessary. I used a Texas summer OAT of
> 100F as a starting point for calculating the intake temperature.
>
> Bobby
>
> *Prop RPM*
>
> 	
>
> *Engine RPM*
>
> 	
>
> *Renesis HP @ standard day*
>
> 	
>
> *4 psi Boost HP *
>
> 	
>
> *HP @ 0'*
>
> 	
>
> *HP @ 8,000'*
>
> 	
>
> *HP @ 10,000'*
>
> 	
>
> *HP @ 18,000'*
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 1700
>
> 	
>
> 4845
>
> 	
>
> 140
>
> 	
>
> 38.0
>
> 	
>
> 178
>
> 	
>
> 135
>
> 	
>
> 125
>
> 	
>
> 82
>
> 	
>
> Estimate 10 HP per pound of air.
>
> 2000
>
> 	
>
> 5700
>
> 	
>
> 175
>
> 	
>
> 47.6
>
> 	
>
> 223
>
> 	
>
> 169
>
> 	
>
> 156
>
> 	
>
> 103
>
> 	
>
> 2500
>
> 	
>
> 7125
>
> 	
>
> 215
>
> 	
>
> 58.5
>
> 	
>
> 274
>
> 	
>
> 208
>
> 	
>
> 192
>
> 	
>
> 126
>
> 	
>
> Pressure Ratio
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 1.36
>
> 	
>
> 1.5
>
> 	
>
> 1.55
>
> 	
>
> 1.79
>
> 	
>
> Assumes 1psi pressure drop on intake prior to turbo for filter
>
> Compressor Eff
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 0.65
>
> 	
>
> 0.65
>
> 	
>
> 0.65
>
> 	
>
> 0.65
>
> 	
>
> Standard Lapse Est OAT
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 100
>
> 	
>
> 72
>
> 	
>
> 65
>
> 	
>
> 37
>
> 	
>
> *Intake Temp @ 65% *
>
> 	
>
> **
>
> 	
>
> **
>
> 	
>
> **
>
> 	
>
> *173.3*
>
> 	
>
> *164.7*
>
> 	
>
> *163.5*
>
> 	
>
> *163.1*
>
> 	
>
> Tout = Tamb + (Tamb * (-1 + PR0.263)) / comp efficiency
>
> Temp Increase
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> 73.3
>
> 	
>
> 92.7
>
> 	
>
> 98.5
>
> 	
>
> 126.1
>
> 	
> 								
>
> *Temperature Adjusted Net  HP*
>
> 								
>
> 1700
>
> 	
>
> 4845
>
> 	
>
> 140
>
> 	
>
> 38
>
> 	
>
> 160.67
>
> 	
>
> 118.53
>
> 	
>
> 108.25
>
> 	
>
> 65.49
>
> 	
>
> 1%per 10F = hp loss with air temperature rise
>
> 2000
>
> 	
>
> 5700
>
> 	
>
> 175
>
> 	
>
> 47.6
>
> 	
>
> 205.27
>
> 	
>
> 153.01
>
> 	
>
> 139.65
>
> 	
>
> 86.29
>
> 	
>
> 2500
>
> 	
>
> 7125
>
> 	
>
> 215
>
> 	
>
> 58.5
>
> 	
>
> 256.17
>
> 	
>
> 191.53
>
> 	
>
> 175.65
>
> 	
>
> 109.69
>
> 	
>
> *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
> *On Behalf Of *Bill Bradburry
> *Sent:* Friday, January 04, 2013 9:44 AM
> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold
>
> Am I wrong?  I don’t think that there is a stock turbo oil source and
> return on the Renesis?  It is not factory turboed.
>
> Bill B
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
> *On Behalf Of *Dave
> *Sent:* Friday, January 04, 2013 9:53 AM
> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold
>
> 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
>     <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>] on behalf of argoldman@aol.com
>     <mailto:argoldman@aol.com> [argoldman@aol.com
>     <mailto: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> <mailto:SBoese@uwyo.edu>
>     To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>     <mailto: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 Driveprop
>     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
>     <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>] on behalf of Bobby J. Hughes
>     [bhughes@qnsi.net <mailto: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
>