Are you using individual throttle body’s per rotor? What’s manifold pressure to you  see at cold idle? I’ve seen a PP pre-renesis engine idle at 18”MP when cold. Improves a little when once warmed up.

 

Bobby Hughes

 

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:48 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [BULK] [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...
Importance: Low

 

I would have to agree, from what I've heard as well over the years when turbos tend to be installed there is added complexity and issues to go along with it, and failures and heat etc.

With my current low drag radiator installs I can run wot and not see temps over 93-95 now.

And has been very reliable, I wasn't to concerned into runner lengths with my design and made a simple plenum chamber and with the prince p tip prop seems to be an excellent combo.

My airstrip is at 3000 ft and I can still get airborne on a normal 25 c day in 350 mtrs, 

Hope this helps

 

Cheers

Sent from my iPad

On 8 Oct 2015, at 5:33 am, Tom Mann <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Whenever the topic comes up about adding a turbo to a Rotary I go back to what was the reasoning I used when making the decision to go Rotary in the first place.

My reasoning was to eliminate as much mechanical complexity as I possibly could. If I added a turbo then the level of complexity (and weight) went up.

I reasoned that if I needed (or just plain wanted) additional power, I would just add another rotor. That actually gives me more power that the turbo for where I need it most and the weight comparison is negligible for the trade-off in power/complexity.

 

I believe that a 2 rotor (using Mistral Engines as a benchmark) produces 190hp N/A (291 lbs) vs. 230hp Turbo (328 lb). The three rotor generates 300 hp @ 375 lb so yes, it’s it’s roughly +50 lbs but +70 hp as well without a significant increase in complexity.

 

I opted for the 3-rotor solution. Less things to go wrong (which is important to me.)

 

T Mann