X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Mark Steitle" Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1c1) with ESMTPS id 7341370 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:11:38 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.82.51; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x12so7304258wgg.24 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:11:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=MprJD3wAW5F6BScLEvSDBjbGe7qW05+GHSowf4w2GY0=; b=VMtY50ZFg/7B8Z1qDAqQxfCaOLaEVNr/bpc0bJss1X/4e8Canq1buS2S2zNnRdV1zs j65NwpL11RbBE4I0mahFaKrv5Xq2kOSLgNHFgH5atTv7wHGhoWfNI7FWObVgDHUWxN1H R4WLrCJFvDXf3sjj4UFWdSwgIyg7essZqF8mSgjXVyE4lMDvoPLt4/aP1bhicDTJXQS6 4Ez7HwHf6HOA6SwfkcPnXOgHG7DbF2luyYfIBkFkioQzXqV0axUnw7uWqS8aaEt/JEtg +izyHeb4IzopWu/ajVA1lEmHYr5wFmCHiql+uWRtNgy/NhS66lHKYwVqk0/sHFt6hL5Y MRQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.48.109 with SMTP id k13mr20598116wjn.7.1418328662436; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.48.12 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:11:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:11:02 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: the List To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86d2ae1972350509f6607a --047d7b86d2ae1972350509f6607a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 David, You're welcome to drop in to Lockhart, TX any time and take a look at my p-port 3-rotor Lancair ES. It reliably produces loads of horsepower, while cruising at over 200 mph on about 11.5 gph. And yes, it is loud. Any "quiet" mufflers I've tried have increased EGT's while reducing top speed, or didn't last long enough to find out how well it worked. I'm still running a "DNA" muffler (made in Canada). Mark S. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:17 AM, David Leonard wrote: > In a perfect world I would have a turbo p-port 3-rotor. :-) > > I sort of ended up with a turbo because it was just sitting there (came > with my '91 turbo engine) so I decided to try it on for size and it never > went away. I am glad I have it, but the 3-rotor and/or p-port would have > been nice options. The turbo quiets things down just enough to be > tolerable, but my formation friends can hear me when I am flying on their > wing... largely because the sound is different, but it is also a little > louder I think. But is is quieter than a n/a rotary engine by just enough > to matter. > > The turbo is not particularly less expensive than a p-port in the long > run. By the time I got most of the issues worked out I am in for over $5k > in turbo rebuilds and non-fitting manifolds etc. Even when cared for > correctly (keeping EGT down), they are only going to last 1000 hrs or so > (who knows) and each rebuild costs $1k. In the long run though, these > costs or the costs of a p-port or 3-rotor are trivial when compared with > the cost of operating an aircraft. If my turbo has cost me $5/hr, then > Avionics have cost $20/hr, gas has been $45/hr and the hangar has been > about $50/hr. Dont let the relatively small cost differences sway your > decision here. > > The turbo definitely adds much more power than p-port would, both down low > and up high. And with the p-port the sound issue is not trivial if your > are going to be maximizing the power output. Lets put it this way, you wont > find me ever removing my turbo. > > But, if I were to do it again, I would probably go with a 3-rotor. Pretty > close to the same power as the turbo, weighs a little more but is more > reliable and efficient. There have been many examples of successfully (and > continued) flying of turbos and 3-rotors. But p-ports in aircraft are sort > of like UFOs: you hear a lot about them, but you never really see one. > > Not to say that p-port isn't the best option. It is light weight, simple > (in a sense), reliable, efficient, lower drag, and brings the power of a > 2-rotor right where you need it for something like an RV. > > I hope this discussion has be helpful (yea right!). > > Dave Leonard > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Neil Unger > wrote: > >> Dave, >> A few of us in OZ were discussing your engine with full >> authority (Called ignorance) and wondered what engine you have and what >> your thoughts are re the turbo. Is it worth the effort?? Just looking to >> save the P port cost, and get a slight HP boost, with the muffler problem >> eliminated. Does it actually work that way, or is it too much grief? Neil. >> >> *From:* David Leonard >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:04 AM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] >> Re: the List >> >> everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a cry for >> attention, It does make the best smoke of the group. >> >> Here is a picture of the pump placement >> >> David Leonard >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM, David Leonard < >> flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote: >> >>> I have smoke on my plane, I just used the same pump as the EFI pump >>> that Tracy used to sell. it weighs less than a pound and puts out about >>> the right flow rate. Built in check valve. I have not problem with >>> leaking. instant cutoff. Tank is in the wing and pump in the wing root >>> which keeps the system and oil smell out of the baggage area. >>> >>> The rotary makes nice hot exhaust which is great for supporting a lot of >>> oil without leaving a residue (except for the 2-stroke oil) >>> >>> Dave Leonard >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Charlie England < >>> flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1417917551-356-672&action=search >>>> >>>> This is made to control fuel to primer ports on a carb'd engine, but >>>> would probably do the job. No idea how well it would survive the heat of >>>> the engine compartment, where it would need to be for a quick/clean cutoff. >>>> Maybe mounted low on the firewall away from the air exit, with the lines >>>> running uphill to the smoke port on the exhaust? >>>> >>>> Charlie >>>> >>>> On 12/6/2014 2:59 PM, hoursaway1 wrote: >>>> >>>> Yep, I'm here in Michigan doing holiday stuff & visiting kids/grand >>>> kids. also am working on a smoke sys. for the RV6A Rotary, want min. 3 >>>> gal., portable, useing automotive fuel pump, looking for a solinoid valve >>>> control for flow ( no dribbling soft smoke trail ). David R. Cook >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From: *"Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net >>>> >>>> *To: *"Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net >>>> >>>> *Sent: *Friday, December 5, 2014 10:10:54 PM >>>> *Subject: *[FlyRotary] Re: the List >>>> >>>> The last message that I seem to have received from the list was 11/19. >>>> this >>>> is a test to see if I have inadvertently been dropped. >>>> Bill Schertz >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive and UnSub: >>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> > --047d7b86d2ae1972350509f6607a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
David,
=A0
You're welcome to= drop in to Lockhart, TX any time and take a look at my p-port 3-rotor Lanc= air ES.=A0 It reliably produces=A0loads of=A0horsepower,=A0while cruising a= t over 200 mph on about 11.5 gph.=A0 And yes, it is loud.=A0 Any "quie= t" mufflers I've tried have increased EGT's=A0while reducing t= op speed, or didn't last long enough to find out how well it worked.=A0= I'm still running=A0a "DNA" muffler (made in Canada).=A0
=A0
Mark S.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:17 AM, David Leonard <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
In a perfect world I would have a turbo p= -port 3-rotor. :-)

I sort of ended up with a turbo becau= se it was just sitting there (came with my '91 turbo engine) so I decid= ed to try it on for size and it never went away.=A0 I am glad I have it, bu= t the 3-rotor and/or p-port would have been nice options.=A0 The turbo quie= ts things down just enough to be tolerable, but my formation friends can he= ar me when I am flying on their wing... =A0largely because the sound is dif= ferent, but it is also a little louder I think.=A0 But is is quieter than a= n/a rotary engine by just enough to matter.

The turbo i= s not particularly less expensive than a p-port in the long run.=A0 By the = time I got most of the issues worked out I am in for over $5k in turbo rebu= ilds and non-fitting manifolds etc.=A0 Even when cared for correctly (keepi= ng EGT down), they are only going to last 1000 hrs or so (who knows) and ea= ch rebuild costs $1k.=A0 In the long run though, these costs or the costs o= f a p-port or 3-rotor are trivial when compared with the cost of operating = an aircraft.=A0 If my turbo has cost me $5/hr, then Avionics have cost $20/= hr, gas has been $45/hr and the hangar has been about $50/hr.=A0 Dont let t= he relatively small cost differences sway your decision here.
The turbo definitely adds much more power than p-port would, bo= th down low and up high.=A0 And with the p-port the sound issue is not triv= ial if your are going to be maximizing the power output. Lets put it this w= ay, you wont find me ever removing my turbo.

But, = if I were to do it again, I would probably go with a 3-rotor.=A0 Pretty clo= se to the same power as the turbo, weighs a little more but is more reliabl= e and efficient.=A0 There have been many examples of successfully (and cont= inued) flying of turbos and 3-rotors.=A0 But p-ports in aircraft are sort o= f like UFOs: =A0you hear a lot about them, but you never really see one.

Not to say that p-port isn't the best option.=A0= It is light weight, simple (in a sense), reliable, efficient, lower drag, = and brings the power of a 2-rotor right where you need it for something lik= e an RV.

I hope this discussion has be helpful (ye= a right!).

Dave Leonard

=

On Wed, Dec= 10, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Neil Unger <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
Dave,
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A few of=20 us in OZ were discussing your engine with full authority (Called ignorance)= and=20 wondered what engine you have and what your thoughts are re the turbo.=A0 I= s=20 it worth the effort??=A0 Just looking to save the P port cost, and get a=20 slight HP boost, with the muffler problem eliminated.=A0 Does it actually= =20 work that way, or is it too much grief?=A0 Neil.
=A0
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:04 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <= /div>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRot= ary]=20 Re: the List
=A0
everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a = cry for=20 attention, It does make the best smoke of the group.=20
=A0
Here is a picture of the pump placement
=A0
David Leonard
=A0
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM, David Le= onard <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
I have smoke on my plane, I just used the same pump as t= he EFI=20 pump that Tracy used to sell.=A0 it weighs less than a pound and puts out= =20 about the right flow rate.=A0 Built in check valve.=A0 I have not=20 problem with leaking. instant cutoff.=A0 Tank is in the wing and pump in= =20 the wing root which keeps the system and oil smell out of the baggage are= a.=20
=A0
The rotary makes nice hot exhaust which is great for supporting a lo= t of=20 oil without leaving a residue (except for the 2-stroke oil)
=A0
Dave Leonard
=A0
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Charlie = England <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
Yep, I'm here in Michigan doing holiday stuff & visiting= =20 kids/grand kids.=A0 also am working on a smoke sys. for the RV6A=20 Rotary, want min. 3 gal., portable, useing automotive fuel pump, look= ing=20 for a solinoid valve control for flow ( no dribbling soft smoke trail= =20 ).=A0 David R. Cook
=A0
=A0
From:=20 "Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net<= br>To: "Fly=20 rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Se= nt:=20 Friday, December 5, 2014 10:10:54 PM
Subject: [FlyRotar= y]=20 Re: the List
=A0
The last message that I seem to have received from the= =20 list was 11/19. this
is a test to see if I have inadvertently bee= n=20 dropped.
Bill=20 Schertz

=A0

--
Homepage:=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=A0=A0= =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= /a>

<= font color=3D"#888888">
=A0

--
Homepage:=A0 = http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:=A0=A0=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



--047d7b86d2ae1972350509f6607a--