X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Mark McClure" Received: from st11p02mm-asmtp001.mac.com ([17.172.220.236] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1c1) with ESMTPS id 7341729 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:01:55 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=17.172.220.236; envelope-from=markmcclure@me.com Received: from [10.0.1.39] (ip70-160-53-201.hr.hr.cox.net [70.160.53.201]) by st11p02mm-asmtp001.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.33.0 64bit (built Aug 27 2014)) with ESMTPSA id <0NGF00B9DXA4NV30@st11p02mm-asmtp001.mac.com> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:01:17 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-12-11_06:2014-12-11,2014-12-11,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1408290000 definitions=main-1412110217 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_64FCFFBA-DC39-474A-BF2C-E5BA07EEA7E5" Message-id: <8FD4CC10-70BD-43EE-90E2-D4F9CD229467@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1985.4\)) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: the List Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:01:16 -0500 References: To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-reply-to: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1985.4) --Apple-Mail=_64FCFFBA-DC39-474A-BF2C-E5BA07EEA7E5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I have looked at using a turbo strictly in its turbine half and powering = something other than a compressor for the purpose of not wanting to go = the muffler route. trying a generator but haven=92t actually tested it yet so no idea if it = will work. Mark McClure > On Dec 11, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mark Steitle = wrote: >=20 > David, > =20 > 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).=20 > =20 > Mark S. >=20 > 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. :-) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I hope this discussion has be helpful (yea right!). >=20 > Dave Leonard >=20 >=20 > 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. > =20 > 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 > =20 > everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a cry for = attention, It does make the best smoke of the group. > =20 > Here is a picture of the pump placement > =20 > David Leonard > =20 > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM, David Leonard = > = 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. > =20 > 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) > =20 > Dave Leonard > =20 > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Charlie England = > = wrote: > = http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=3D1417917551-356-672&a= ction=3Dsearch = >=20 > 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? >=20 > Charlie >=20 > 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 >> =20 >> =20 >> 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 >> =20 >> The last message that I seem to have received from the list was = 11/19. this=20 >> is a test to see if I have inadvertently been dropped. >> Bill Schertz >=20 > =20 >=20 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html = >=20 > =20 >=20 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html = >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_64FCFFBA-DC39-474A-BF2C-E5BA07EEA7E5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
I have looked at using a turbo strictly in = its turbine half and powering something other than a compressor for the = purpose of not wanting to go the muffler route.

trying a generator but haven=92t = actually tested it yet so no idea if it will work.

Mark McClure


On = Dec 11, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mark Steitle <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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 <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 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 <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
Dave,
          &nb= sp; 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.  Is=20 it worth the effort??  Just looking to save the P port cost, and = get a=20 slight HP boost, with the muffler problem eliminated.  Does it = actually=20 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]=20 Re: the List
 
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
 
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=20 pump that Tracy used to sell.  it weighs less than a pound and = puts out=20 about the right flow rate.  Built in check valve.  I have = not=20 problem with leaking. instant cutoff.  Tank is in the wing and = pump in=20 the wing root which keeps the system and oil smell out of the baggage = area.=20
 
The rotary makes nice hot exhaust which is great for = supporting a lot of=20 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=3D141791755= 1-356-672&action=3Dsearch

This=20 is made to control fuel to primer ports on a carb'd engine, but = would=20 probably do the job. No idea how well it would survive the heat of = the=20 engine compartment, where it would need to be for a quick/clean = cutoff.=20 Maybe mounted low on the firewall away from the air exit, with the = lines=20 running uphill to the smoke port on the exhaust?

Charlie

On=20 12/6/2014 2:59 PM, hoursaway1 wrote:
Yep, I'm here in Michigan doing holiday stuff = & visiting=20 kids/grand kids.  also am working on a smoke sys. for the = RV6A=20 Rotary, want min. 3 gal., portable, useing automotive fuel pump, = looking=20 for a solinoid valve control for flow ( no dribbling soft smoke = trail=20 ).  David R. Cook
 
 
From:=20 "Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net
To: "Fly=20 rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent:=20 Friday, December 5, 2014 10:10:54 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary]=20 Re: the List
 
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 been=20 dropped.
Bill=20 Schertz

 

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:  =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= br class=3D"">
 

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:  =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= br class=3D"">

<= /div>



= --Apple-Mail=_64FCFFBA-DC39-474A-BF2C-E5BA07EEA7E5--