X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Charlie England" Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.2) with ESMTPS id 7742192 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:18:49 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.174; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com Received: by yked142 with SMTP id d142so7799850yke.3 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 06:18:13 -0700 (PDT) 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=F14Sq/WiqpZdQEV3Nl3FmuzX2U+dJfIDvgy2TRFD+j4=; b=ArU9328yj6mA43RIGyF0BxjIDvqNoZDLiLb2H2qG4dGFFd5yn+61+RMZ2MBlByv+GB 0J5Z4/v0/k6UJo9dB8N10+WlMc8rPosUahmVi7OLkgRWEZhQ3FQMRU6AdFtY01U73Gg9 XKue/eWoRTqiQnMW4I2iXRbGoUX+1cTfpE5rpS6FHNQHrIuh67GXwJyatGRVZglnkGQw oHhrQL2KtcfqGFJyD/ikBKlf62XDI6guxkevSKvTFi7R6FdEjnBmHI25XamHwM3Uttnd 1HKOFXlYUht+NZgDn5nNigAQyR/uZVezkAuRKwF69tGtU3ksKG1Zj0bFXdSLsB8czoAW Jguw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.170.6 with SMTP id m6mr25230822ykd.102.1433855893382; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 06:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.232.213 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:18:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:18:12 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11392c9a2f2ab90518159720 --001a11392c9a2f2ab90518159720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable But to go 11 mph faster at cruise only takes 37.5 hp more. :-) Seriously, speed really is money. Hey Rich, my apologies; I think I hijacked your thread. I'm no aero engineer (or thermal dynamicist), but my bet is on the rotary acting like any other internal combustion engine. If you can run full throttle at optimum engine rpm like a c/s prop'd piston engine, you should see the same benefits due to reduction in pumping losses. Charlie (more questions for Bill later) On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote: > Bobby, > > > > It is amazing how much it costs to go faster. 50 hp costing 4-5 gal/hr i= s > only good for an additional 11 mph! 5 gallons to go 11 miles=E2=80=A6tha= t is > expensive! > > > > I wish I had paid more attention to the drag on my bird! :>( > > > > Weight helps in the climb. I probably was able to save 10 lbs of empty > weight building the plane over 7 years. I went on a diet and exercised a > little and lost 30 lbs over the last few months! I have been trying to > think of a way to bring this subject up with my wife=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6! = :>) > > > > On second thought, it climbs pretty well. > > > > Bill > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 11:10 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question > > > > Using Van=E2=80=99s climb performance numbers I=E2=80=99m closer to the 2= 10HP engine than > the 230HP. Maybe 215HP net. The super charger mechanical losses may be a= s > high as 10HP and the air temperature rise could be another 10 HP. Water > injection cools the intake charge but displaces O2 so I really don=E2=80= =99t know. > I=E2=80=99m sure the gearbox has mechanical losses also. So 230-240 HP be= fore > operational losses seems reasonable. > > > > > > > > *Light Weight *2200 lbs > > *210 hp* > > ** 235 hp* > > *260 hp* > > *Speed * > > Top Speed > > 200 mph > > 204 mph > > 211 mph > > Cruise [75% @ 8000 ft] > > 190 mph > > 194 mph > > 201 mph > > Cruise [55% @ 8000 ft] > > 170 mph > > 174 mph > > 180 mph > > Stall Speed > > 57 mph > > 57 mph > > 57 mph > > *Ground Performance * > > Takeoff Distance > > 475 ft > > 415 ft > > 360 ft > > Landing Distance > > 500 ft > > 500 ft > > 525 ft > > *Climb/Ceiling * > > Rate of Climb > > 1,400 fpm > > 1,669 fpm > > 1,950 fpm > > > > > > > > Bobby > > > > > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 10:20 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question > > > > Bobby, > > Wouldn=E2=80=99t you think that equates to about 250 hp on take off?? > > Bill > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net > ] > *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 9:47 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question > > > > Bill, > > > > I believe my normal fuel flow is actually closer to 23gph at 7000 rpm\ 38= =E2=80=9D > MP and 12.5 FA. I don=E2=80=99t really look at it anymore during takeoff.= I=E2=80=99ll pull > current engine logs when my AFS-3400 EM gets back from repair. It decided > to start rebooting every few minutes. I can run 40.5=E2=80=9D MP / 7500 = rpm at sea > level but avoid the top limits. My MT controller is within 100 rpm. > > > > Bobby > > > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net > ] > *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 8:46 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question > > > > Bobby, > > You can take my fuel burn numbers with a grain of salt. The EM-2 is not > completely calibrated for fuel flow. > > > > By the way, is your prop controller dial calibrated to the prop rpm you > actually get? Mine is not and I think that Mark=E2=80=99s may not be eit= her based > on some of the things he has written. > > To get 7100 engine rpm, which is 2500 prop rpm, I have to set the > controller for 2600 for takeoff. 2400 setting will get me 6500, etc.. > Early on, I thought that the tach on the EM-2 might be off, but I decided > that to be pretty unlikely. However, there is a disconnect between the t= wo. > > > > Bill > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net > ] > *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 7:01 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question > > > > Bill > > > > 12 gal/hr for takeoff sounds extremely low. I'm closer to 25. > > > > I leave the prop in automatic mode all the time. I set the prop to go > around rpm on downwind. 2300 / 6500 works well for me and almost eliminat= es > air breaking during short final. I try to carry a small amount of power > through the flare but I think that's common with RV's. I had to really wo= rk > on slowing down before entering the pattern and adjusting the prop to 230= 0. > > > > Bobby > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Jun 7, 2015, at 11:25 PM, Bill Bradburry > wrote: > > Charlie, > > I am flying a Lancair Legacy Fixed Gear. I burn 8.5 =E2=80=93 9 gal/hr a= t cruise > and a little over 12 on take off. I don=E2=80=99t have my fuel flow cali= bration > completed and it could be part of a gallon or so off on the EM-2. I get > over 20 mpg at over 185 mph which I still have trouble getting my head > around! In a car going that fast you would be measuring it in > gallons/mile! I really never tried to lean the engine before I put the > broadband sensor in the plane so I don=E2=80=99t really know the answer a= bout the > egt spread. I do get a lot higher egt readings than were advertised. I > was expecting temps in the 15-1600s, but they are in the 1700s. > > > > Since the rotary is so sensitive to rpm for power output, I don=E2=80=99t= know if > I would have been happy with it with a fixed prop unless I had more power > than I needed. I have seen two MT props for sale since I bought mine and > both were good deals. I highly recommend the electric prop. It responds= a > little slower than a hydraulic prop, but that is only a problem if you sl= am > the throttle. I guess the other con for the prop is it helps to carry so= me > power to touchdown because if you chop power in the flare, the prop goes > flat and acts like a big brake and the plane seems to just stop flying an= d > drop. I carry power, but I think Mark switches the prop to manual in the > pattern and lands it like it was a fixed prop. I don=E2=80=99t know what= Bobby > does in this case. > > > > Bill > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net > ] > *Sent:* Sunday, June 07, 2015 7:14 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question > > > > Hi Bill, > > I'm always hungry for 'numbers' like that. Can you refresh my memory on > which plane you're flying? > > What's your fuel flow during takeoff? > > And I'm really interested in your fuel flow at your cruise setting of 600= 0 > rpm full throttle up at 7500-8000 feet. Do you have an EGT in addition to > your f/a gauge? If so, what's the egt spread between peak and leaned to > your cruise setting of 16-1 f/a ratio (how many degrees lean of peak)? > > Having a controllable prop certainly makes it easier to get a full set of > performance numbers, doesn't it? > > Many thanks, > > Charlie > > On 6/7/2015 2:59 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote: > > Rich, > > I am flying the NA Renesis with MT electric prop and wideband O2 sensor. > > Take off and initial climb is WOT with 7100 rpm, after about 500 ft AGL, = I > dial the prop back to 6500 rpm, still WOT. Cruise climb is WOT and > 6000-6200 rpm, and cruise is WOT and 5200-5800 rpm. All climbs are at > 12.0-12.5 F/A mixture and cruise is 15.8-16.0 F/A mixture. > > I never move the throttle off of wide open until I am slowing to enter th= e > pattern for landing. Engine speed is controlled with the prop and power t= o > some extent with the mixture. > > I have hopes that after Bobby makes his decision as to whether to go with > the turbo or the 20B, he will give me the other one! :>) > > Bill > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net > ] > *Sent:* Sunday, June 07, 2015 10:25 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question > > Rich, > > My normal, not in a hurry settings. > > 38" MP / 7000 rpm for takeoff and initial climb with F/A 12.5-12.0. Cruis= e > climb 5800 rpm 30-32" MP F/A 13.5- 12.5. Preferred cruise rpm 4800- 5200 = At > less than 30" MP and F/A 15.8-16.0. Full throttle. Prop rpm controls engi= ne > rpm and super charger bypass controls MP. A turbo charger and automotive > waste gate would likely require throttle management during high rpm > operations. > > Bobby Hughes > > Super charged Renesis with electric MT prop. > > (New Turbo charger and a 20B on the bench- still haven't made a decision > about upgrading the RV10. ) > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Jun 7, 2015, at 9:34 AM, ARGOLDMAN wrote= : > > Greetings genlepeople of the rotary pursuasion, > > For those of you using variable pitch (C/S) props, an operating question > that has been bugging me. Perhaps the collective wisdom of this group can > set my mind at rest. > > In piston aircraft engines, the concept of running over squared MP vs RPM > has been heavily questioned to the extent that some suggest running at fu= ll > throttle all the time and controlling the power output via RPM (within > reason). The thought is to, I believe, eliminate the induction restrictio= n > of the butterfly valve increasing the efficiency. > > Now we have a rotor spinning, a gear box gearing and a propeller > propelling. Does this concept hold true for the rotaries. What are people > doing in terms of setting power after take off (full throttle max RPM). > > My enquiring and rotating mind wants to know. > > (Unturbocharged Renesis with RD1-c Box) > > Thanks > > Rich > > > > --001a11392c9a2f2ab90518159720 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
But to go 11 mph faster at cruise only takes 37.5 hp more.= :-)

Seriously, speed really is money.=C2=A0
<= br>
Hey Rich, my apologies; I think I hijacked your thread. I'= ;m no aero engineer (or thermal dynamicist), but my bet is on the rotary ac= ting like any other internal combustion engine. If you can run full throttl= e at optimum engine rpm like a c/s prop'd piston engine, you should see= the same benefits due to reduction in pumping losses.

=
Charlie
(more questions for Bill later)

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:1= 0 PM, Bill Bradburry <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>= wrote:

Bobby,

=C2=A0

It is amazing how = much it costs to go faster.=C2=A0 50 hp costing 4-5 gal/hr is only good for an additional 11 mph!=C2=A0 5 gallons to go 11 miles=E2=80=A6that is expensive!

=C2=A0

I wish I had paid = more attention to the drag on my bird!=C2=A0 :>(=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Weight helps in th= e climb.=C2=A0 I probably was able to save 10 lbs of empty weight building the plane over 7 years.=C2= =A0 I went on a diet and exercised a little and lost 30 lbs over the last few mon= ths!=C2=A0 I have been trying to think of a way to bring this subject up with my wife= =E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6!=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 :>)

=C2=A0

On second thought,= it climbs pretty well.

=C2=A0

Bill

=C2=A0

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 = 11:10 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question

=C2=A0

= Using Va= n=E2=80=99s climb performance numbers I=E2=80=99m closer to the 210HP engine than the 2= 30HP. Maybe 215HP net.=C2=A0 The super charger mechanical losses may be as high a= s 10HP and the air temperature rise could be another 10 HP. Water injection c= ools the intake charge but displaces O2 so I really don=E2=80=99t know. I=E2=80= =99m sure the gearbox has mechanical losses also. So 230-240 HP before operational lo= sses seems reasonable.

= = =C2=A0

= = =C2=A0

= = =C2=A0

Light Weight 2200= lbs

210 hp<= span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">

* 235 hp

260 hp<= span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1f497d">

Speed <= /u>

Top Sp= eed

200 mp= h

204 mp= h

211 mp= h

Cruise= [75% @ 8000 ft]

190 mp= h

194 mp= h

201 mp= h

Cruise= [55% @ 8000 ft]

170 mp= h

174 mp= h

180 mp= h

Stall = Speed

57 mph=

57 mph=

57 mph=

Ground Performance

Takeof= f Distance

475 ft=

415 ft=

360 ft=

Landin= g Distance

500 ft=

500 ft=

525 ft=

Climb/Ceiling <= /u>

Rate o= f Climb

1,400 = fpm

1,669 = fpm

1,950 = fpm

= = =C2=A0

= = =C2=A0

= = =C2=A0

= Bobby=

= = =C2=A0

= = =C2=A0

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 = 10:20 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question

=C2=A0

Bobby,

Wouldn=E2=80=99t y= ou think that equates to about 250 hp on take off??

Bill

=C2=A0

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 = 9:47 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question

=C2=A0

= Bill,=

= = =C2=A0

= I believ= e my normal fuel flow is actually closer to 23gph at 7000 rpm\ 38=E2=80=9D MP and 12.5 = FA. I don=E2=80=99t really look at it anymore during takeoff. I=E2=80=99ll pull c= urrent engine logs when my AFS-3400 EM gets back from repair. It decided to start rebooting every few minutes.=C2=A0 I can run 40.5=E2=80=9D MP / 7500 rpm at= sea level but avoid the top limits.=C2=A0 My MT controller is within 100 rpm. <= u>

= = =C2=A0

= Bobby=

= = =C2=A0

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 = 8:46 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question

=C2=A0

Bobby,

You can take my fu= el burn numbers with a grain of salt.=C2=A0 The EM-2 is not completely calibrated for fuel flow.

=C2=A0

By the way, is you= r prop controller dial calibrated to the prop rpm you actually get?=C2=A0 Mine is not and I think = that Mark=E2=80=99s may not be either based on some of the things he has written.=C2=A0

To get 7100 engine= rpm, which is 2500 prop rpm, I have to set the controller for 2600 for takeoff.=C2=A0 2400 setting = will get me 6500, etc..=C2=A0 Early on, I thought that the tach on the EM-2 migh= t be off, but I decided that to be pretty unlikely.=C2=A0 However, there is a disconnect between the two.

=C2=A0

Bill

=C2=A0

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 = 7:01 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question

=C2=A0

Bill

=C2=A0

12 gal/hr for takeoff sounds extreme= ly low. I'm closer to 25.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

=C2=A0I leave the prop in automatic = mode all the time. I set the prop to go around rpm on downwind. 2300 / 6500 works well for me = and almost eliminates air breaking during short final. I try to carry a small amount of power through the flare but I think that's common with RV'= ;s. I had to really work on slowing down before entering the pattern and adjusting the p= rop to 2300.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Bobby

Sent from my iPad


On Jun 7, 2015, at 11:25 PM, Bill Bradburry <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Charlie,

I am flying a Lanc= air Legacy Fixed Gear.=C2=A0 I burn 8.5 =E2=80=93 9 gal/hr at cruise and a little over 12 on= take off.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t have my fuel flow calibration completed and it c= ould be part of a gallon or so off on the EM-2. I get over 20 mpg at over 185 mp= h which I still have trouble getting my head around!=C2=A0 In a car going tha= t fast you would be measuring it in gallons/mile!=C2=A0 =C2=A0I really never tried= to lean the engine before I put the broadband sensor in the plane so I don=E2= =80=99t really know the answer about the egt spread.=C2=A0 I do get a lot higher eg= t readings than were advertised.=C2=A0 I was expecting temps in the 15-1600s,= but they are in the 1700s.

=C2=A0

Since the rotary i= s so sensitive to rpm for power output, I don=E2=80=99t know if I would have been happy with it w= ith a fixed prop unless I had more power than I needed.=C2=A0 I have seen two MT props for sale since I bought mine and both were good deals.=C2=A0 I highly recommend the electric prop.=C2=A0 It responds a little slower than a hydra= ulic prop, but that is only a problem if you slam the throttle.=C2=A0 I guess th= e other con for the prop is it helps to carry some power to touchdown because= if you chop power in the flare, the prop goes flat and acts like a big brake a= nd the plane seems to just stop flying and drop.=C2=A0 I carry power, but I th= ink Mark switches the prop to manual in the pattern and lands it like it was a fixed prop.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t know what Bobby does in this case.=

=C2=A0

Bill

=C2=A0

= From: Rotary motors in aircraft<= /ins> [= mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 = 7:14 PM
To: Rotary= motors in aircraft<= span>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question

=C2=A0

Hi Bill,

I'm always hungry for 'numbers' like that. Can you refresh my m= emory on which plane you're flying?

What's your fuel flow during takeoff?

And I'm really interested in your fuel flow at your cruise setting of 6= 000 rpm full throttle up at 7500-8000 feet. Do you have an EGT in addition to your = f/a gauge? If so, what's the egt spread between peak and leaned to your cru= ise setting of 16-1 f/a ratio (how many degrees lean of peak)?

Having a controllable prop certainly makes it easier to get a full set of performance numbers, doesn't it?

Many thanks,

Charlie

On 6/7/2015 2:59 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:

Rich,

I am flying the NA= Renesis with MT electric prop and wideband O2 sensor.

Take off and initi= al climb is WOT with 7100 rpm, after about 500 ft AGL, I dial the prop back to 6500 rpm, still W= OT. Cruise climb is WOT and 6000-6200 rpm, and cruise is WOT and 5200-5800 rpm.= All climbs are at 12.0-12.5 F/A mixture and cruise is 15.8-16.0 F/A mixture.

I never move the t= hrottle off of wide open until I am slowing to enter the pattern for landing. Engine speed is contro= lled with the prop and power to some extent with the mixture.

I have hopes that = after Bobby makes his decision as to whether to go with the turbo or the 20B, he will give me the other one! :>)

Bill

= From:<= /span> = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 = 10:25 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new operating question

Rich,

My normal, not in a hurry settings. =

38" MP / 7000 rpm for takeoff a= nd initial climb with F/A 12.5-12.0. Cruise climb 5800 rpm 30-32" MP F/A 13.5- 12.5. Preferred cruise rpm 4800- 5200 At less than 30" MP and F/A 15.8-16.0. Full throttle. Prop rpm controls engine rpm and super charger bypass contro= ls MP. A turbo charger and automotive waste gate would likely require throttle management during high rpm operations.

Bobby Hughes

Super charged Renesis with electric = MT prop.

(New Turbo charger and a 20B on the = bench- still haven't made a decision about upgrading the RV10. )



Sent from my iPad


On Jun 7, 2015, at 9:34 AM, ARGOLDMAN <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Greetings genlepeople of the= rotary pursuasion,

For those of you using varia= ble pitch (C/S) props, an operating question that has been bugging me. Perhaps the collective wisdom = of this group can set my mind at rest.

In piston aircraft engines, = the concept of running over squared MP vs RPM has been heavily questioned to the extent that some suggest running at full throttle all the time and controlling the power out= put via RPM (within reason). The thought is to, I believe, eliminate the induct= ion restriction of the butterfly valve increasing the efficiency.=

Now we have a rotor spinning= , a gear box gearing and a propeller propelling. Does this concept hold true for the rotaries. What = are people doing in terms of setting power after take off (full throttle max RP= M).

My enquiring and rotating mi= nd wants to know.

(Unturbocharged Renesis with= RD1-c Box)

Thanks<= u>

Rich=

=C2=A0


--001a11392c9a2f2ab90518159720--