X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: Received: from [97.64.187.18] (HELO dsmdc-mail-smtp.mcomdc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1c1) with ESMTP id 7341761 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:26:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=97.64.187.18; envelope-from=btilley@mchsi.com Received: from dsmdc-mail-mbs13-svc.mcomdc.com ([97.64.187.47]) by dsmdc-mail-omta-03 with bizsmtp id SPRm1p00H11nQh501PRma4; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:25:46 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Qe314Krv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=6+LW9L2C7c3kR1/iXZnDzQ==:117 a=FmEARZ09AAAA:8 a=FKkrIqjQGGEA:10 a=Xgx1Tm3OgQcA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Hd4JvI9PAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=y1BBXd_fAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=O2Fzy-ACWmW1HnRbJkMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Tr8nuKu5vpAA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:25:44 -0600 (CST) To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-ID: <349966873.278601418340343727.JavaMail.root@dsmdc-mail-mbs13> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: the List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.4.20.181] X-Mailer: Zimbra 5.0.19_GA_3083.RHEL5_64 (zclient/5.0.19_GA_3083.RHEL5_64) Mark How many generators operate at 100,000 rpm? You will still need to gear it = down;-) Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark McClure To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:01:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: the= List I have looked at using a turbo strictly in its turbine half and powering so= mething other than a compressor for the purpose of not wanting to go the mu= ffler route. trying a generator but haven=E2=80=99t actually tested it yet so no idea if= it will work. Mark McClure > On Dec 11, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mark Steitle w= rote: >=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 "qu= iet" 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 w= ith my '91 turbo engine) so I decided to try it on for size and it never we= nt away. I am glad I have it, but the 3-rotor and/or p-port would have bee= n 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... lar= gely 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 ru= n. 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 correct= ly (keeping EGT down), they are only going to last 1000 hrs or so (who know= s) 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 ope= rating 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 le= t the relatively small cost differences sway your decision here. >=20 > The turbo definitely adds much more power than p-port would, both down lo= w 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. Prett= y close to the same power as the turbo, weighs a little more but is more re= liable and efficient. There have been many examples of successfully (and c= ontinued) 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 autho= rity (Called ignorance) and wondered what engine you have and what your tho= ughts 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 eliminate= d. 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: t= he List > =20 > everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a cry for attenti= on, 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 rig= ht flow rate. Built in check valve. I have not problem with leaking. inst= ant 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&= action=3Dsearch >=20 > This is made to control fuel to primer ports on a carb'd engine, but woul= d probably do the job. No idea how well it would survive the heat of the en= gine 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., p= ortable, 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. t= his=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/Lis= t.html >=20 > =20 >=20 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/Lis= t.html >=20 >=20 >=20