X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "David Leonard" Received: from mail-qa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1c2) with ESMTPS id 7350723 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 13:56:55 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.41; envelope-from=wdleonard@gmail.com Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id f12so6657881qad.14 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:56:21 -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=e7O6ewRZQEgUDciRPMsDHeoGgkElJKDItfeiKqlZFak=; b=DfNpY/2AYHYfxz7TLdlKgDqUjrEAhL8EjOnUcDeIkiLxGqFnHJ3fBbjr9VaKkva1b7 RzOC7aAU5KMd5EcRID5droyXWpiu6/TsgJBZ0lTQh8gjm7muqlnVj7UjkS1Zye8vIgHK LXELbbJnYDM8bDee/Ayx+V2NQvskLb6KlFYK+C49Uwf7vCFX7o4Koz/HXIwnREV29g26 foxz+80Jboi7Zyw1JHSYgTVHp3NXdffO+YWKxEYaqp7u8o81muLqjsnbMFPpim00d/9A h+cMGzYuvcQIA+rzZ/XnH8ru/u3nyDXNA/KB0NWHV/G4494wKzswLjb9GOq7xpCu2e4O OZjg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.34.67 with SMTP id k61mr40121585qgk.95.1418496980921; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.23.20 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:56:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:56:20 -0800 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=001a11c0dd5ca9b221050a1d9033 --001a11c0dd5ca9b221050a1d9033 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Ha! Mark, you caught me - or rather I forgot about your flying p-port. Sorry. Sure wish I had a p-port 3-rotor. :-) Dave Leonard On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Mark Steitle 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 >> 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 >>> >>> >> > --001a11c0dd5ca9b221050a1d9033 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ha!=C2=A0 Mark, you caught me - or rather I forgot about your flying p= -port.=C2=A0 Sorry.=C2=A0=C2=A0Sure wish I had a p-port 3-rotor.=C2=A0 :-)<= /div>
=C2=A0
Dave Leonard
=C2=A0

=C2=A0
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Mark Steitle <= span dir=3D"ltr"><flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:=20
David,
=C2=A0
You're welcome to drop in to Lockhart, TX any time and take a look= at my p-port 3-rotor Lancair ES.=C2=A0 It reliably produces=C2=A0loads of= =C2=A0horsepower,=C2=A0while cruising at over 200 mph on about 11.5 gph.=C2= =A0 And yes, it is loud.=C2=A0 Any "quiet" mufflers I've trie= d have increased EGT's=C2=A0while reducing top speed, or didn't las= t long enough to find out how well it worked.=C2=A0 I'm still running= =C2=A0a "DNA" muffler (made in Canada).=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Mark S.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:17 AM, David Leonard <= span dir=3D"ltr"><flyrotary@lancaironline.net> 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 (cam= e with my '91 turbo engine) so I decided to try it on for size and it n= ever went away.=C2=A0 I am glad I have it, but the 3-rotor and/or p-port wo= uld have been nice options.=C2=A0 The turbo quiets things down just enough = to be tolerable, but my formation friends can hear me when I am flying on t= heir wing... =C2=A0largely because the sound is different, but it is also a= little louder I think.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 By the time I got most of the issues worked out I am in for ove= r $5k in turbo rebuilds and non-fitting manifolds etc.=C2=A0 Even when care= d for correctly (keeping EGT down), they are only going to last 1000 hrs or= so (who knows) and each rebuild costs $1k.=C2=A0 In the long run though, t= hese costs or the costs of a p-port or 3-rotor are trivial when compared wi= th the cost of operating an aircraft.=C2=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.=C2=A0 Dont let the relatively small cost differences sway yo= ur decision here.

The turbo definitely adds much more power than p-port would, both down= low and up high.=C2=A0 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.=C2= =A0 Pretty close to the same power as the turbo, weighs a little more but i= s more reliable and efficient.=C2=A0 There have been many examples of succe= ssfully (and continued) flying of turbos and 3-rotors.=C2=A0 But p-ports in= aircraft are sort of like UFOs: =C2=A0you hear a lot about them, but you n= ever really see one.

Not to say that p-port isn't the best option.=C2=A0 It is light we= ight, 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,
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 A f= ew of us in OZ were discussing your engine with full authority (Called igno= rance) and wondered what engine you have and what your thoughts are re the = turbo.=C2=A0 Is it worth the effort??=C2=A0 Just looking to save the P port= cost, and get a slight HP boost, with the muffler problem eliminated.=C2= =A0 Does it actually work that way, or is it too much grief?=C2=A0 Neil.
=C2=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] Re: the List
=C2=A0
everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a = cry for attention, It does make the best smoke of the group.=20
=C2=A0
Here is a picture of the pump placement
=C2=A0
David Leonard
=C2=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 the= EFI pump that Tracy used to sell.=C2=A0 it weighs less than a pound and pu= ts out about the right flow rate.=C2=A0 Built in check valve.=C2=A0 I have = not problem with leaking. instant cutoff.=C2=A0 Tank is in the wing and pum= p in the wing root which keeps the system and oil smell out of the baggage = area.=20
=C2=A0
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)
=C2=A0
Dave Leonard
=C2=A0
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Charlie En= gland <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
http://www.vansaircraf= t.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=3D1417917551-356-672&action=3Dsearch<= br>
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 cuto= ff. Maybe mounted low on the firewall away from the air exit, with the line= s 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.=C2=A0 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 ).=C2=A0 David R. C= ook
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Fro= m: "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
=C2=A0
The last message that I seem to have received from the lis= t was 11/19. this
is a test to see if I have inadvertently been dropped= .
Bill Schertz

=C2=A0

= --
Homepage:=C2=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0=C2=A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
=C2=A0

--
Homepage:=C2=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0=C2=A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= br>


<= /blockquote>

--001a11c0dd5ca9b221050a1d9033--