Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.70; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:35:39 -0400
Subject: FW: Some answers from the source
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message-ID: <BD74B75B.10914%atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
In-Reply-To: <414F2ED8.5D1272A4@earthlink.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Interesting post:

Douglas Fir wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul and everyone,
> 
> I just returned from Hiroshima and the trip was a wee bit of an eye opener.
> What follows are just a few of the points discussed.
> 
> I spent most of my time with the F.C. design office which specializes in
> electronic fuel injection systems, both control and injector design. Their
> main business is catering to recip. engines though.
> 
> Mr. Nakane just captured the world record (Guinness) best fuel mileage for
> the second year in a row and Mr. Kagawa designed the fuel system for the 4
> rotor winning LeMans' engine. Both have extensive design and test data on
> rotary and recip. engines both in building and in dyno time. Both are
> ex-MAZDA engineers who thought they could "do better work" on their own.
> 
> We spoke about the concept of turbo compounding the rotary as a way of
> improving fuel performance and they said that it will be tricky with only
> one turbine and its other gearing, and  were of the opinion that it wouldn't
> have a chance with MAZDA MOTORS accepting it in their  automobiles. They
> weren't very  positive about MAZDA's rotary engine and remarked that the sub
> systems and controls had gotten very complex and as such reliability
> suffered.  They remarked that Mazda's had every reason to be nervous about
> their rotaries flying in aircraft. They were both thinking that we homebuilt
> aircraft people just stuck in the automobile engine 'as is' and go off
> flying.  This seems to be a common misconception by all people who hear the
> words 'flying with an auto engine'.
> 
> It was at this point I  gave them a brief review of how  rotary powered
> aircraft used a highly modified engine that has evolved over the last 5
> years with the help of a talented international group of individuals that
> have networked to improve the reliability of the engine. I remarked that
> except for the block and a few perhiehals, the engine was an totally
> different animal.  They were happy to hear that one individual Tracy Crook
> has succeeded in flying so many hours with the 13B, but were concerned he
> had changed to a RENESIS engine.   Interestly enough their professional
> opinion was that the 13B is far more superior than either Renesis engine.
> Remember though until I spoke with them they were thinking auto with all of
> its mufflers, and smog burners attached. They said the 13B does breath
> easier.
> 
> They stated that the RENESIS engine configuration  simplifies the fix of low
> rpm rough idling problems, and as we all know  improves the low end torque.
> They said that it was common for all Japanese auto companies to overstate
> the performance numbers (with the blessings of the government) and that only
> the German automakers gave accurate data. They were VERY skeptical about the
> RENESIS engine improved fuel mileage claims.
> 
> Remember many of their friends still work at MAZDA as part of the Renesis
> development team so they get an good idea of what is being reported.
> Perhaps like Paul says the zoomers are very lead footed. Mr. Nakane said for
> turbo applications the exhaust P-port is superior to the the high drag and
> heat absorbing side port RENESIS. In addition he stated the long combustion
> chamber of the rotary and its heat losses to the housing is one reason the
> fuel BSFC won't ever match the recip.'s engine.
> 
> Also Nakane   said that after 2000 rpms the 13B's fuel mileage increases
> when some of the exhaust gas is recycled into the next intake charge.  He
> also mentioned that the better turbo charger is the one that diverts the
> exhaust gas into two streams and enters the turbo from the  front and back.
> I may have misinterpreted this last bit of information though.
> 
> Both guys were a wealth of information but they didn't know everything,
> especially pertaining to aircraft applications.  To the elder Mr. Kawagawa's
> credit, he wanted to know more about the use of rotaries in airplanes and
> asked for me to send him  some pictures of installations and the flying
> video. He asked 3 times which is pretty standard way of saying over here, "I
> am really serious about this request" I will try to make him up a CD of
> different planes and designs.
> 
> His eyes lit up as I explained to him that yes I realized the rotary seals
> are easy to break in high boost situations but I would only want to use high
> boost for short time intervals when maximum climb power is needed and then
> only enough to 'normalize' the engine at higher altitudes and use the excess
> exhaust energy to run the turbo compound system.  He seemed to understand
> and grasp the advantageous immediately as I told him that airplanes fly long
> distances with few power setting changes. He seem to knows about common
> aircraft engine designs. He mentioned at an aside that most turbo compound
> applications had advantageous in the larger engines. Mr. Kagawa did say 4300
> rpms continuous were not a problem with the rotary. I didn't ask the upper
> continuous rpm. setting but suspected he wouldn't agree with the 6000
> number.  I expect that Tracy has the most data on those ranges.
> 
>  As the younger Mr. Nakane remarked,  "Mr. Kagawa has more graphs and
> information in his head then any sophisticated smart computer program you
> could every create for the dyno testing."  He also said that "with Mr.
> Kagawa understanding of the rotary engine, he could probably accomplish in
> one month of dyno testing what would take another professional two years to
> do." They lead me to believe he knew enough about the idiosyncrasies of the
> rotary engine that he could  pinpoint some good working ranges for our turbo
> compounding application.  I got some hand written graphs on BSCF research
> they did with the 13B and I will try to get it into a useable format to
> post.
> 
>  They did agree that the two turbine set-up discussed earlier on this list
> was the safest way to test the turbo compound method. He advised me to make
> or modify  a cast iron  manifold with inconel butterfly valves and not to
> link the two valves together but have some sort of safety system so they
> could not both close at the same time.  Both have witnessed many rotaries
> detonate, and the chain reaction of several different components failing.
> When I get more details I will post them, but I think we all know that
> highly pressurized fuel spraying on a hot exhaust manifold is not a good
> thing. Water and oil hoses coming off on test rigs were also mentioned.
> 
> So it seems we have some advise and information to give to them as well:)
> They need to put the fuel rail on the cool side and double clamp silicon
> hoses with a quality spring loaded clamps.  I'll have to mention about
> testing the coolant for high level TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) as well.
> After I explained I wanted to build my own dyno, they warned me to seek
> professional help. I took it to mean an offer for helping to test the
> engine, but perhaps they were questioning my sanity as I was naive enough to
> think I could put in on the test stand for a few hours walk away and have
> the computer run the experiment:)  They both said that in their experience
> they sit and watch the engine and computer monitors like hawks. They said
> there are to many variables that despite our best efforts could fail and
> destroy the engine.
> 
> Other news:
> 
> K.C. Design is presently developing a small rotary engine for RC model
> airplanes, they just purchased a small Wren jet turbine to play with to
> improve the fuel burn no doubt, and they have their own RC model airplane
> dyno test software ready to ship with a small eddy current device to load
> the engine for testing.  They recommended eddy current device as being much
> more stable for maintaining  constant rpms. They poo pooed the idea of a
> water pump with a dyno for accurate work. I am not informed enough on either
> approach to comment. I would appreciate anyone's' thoughts.
> 
> The more I think about it, Tracy, Paul, and Jim M. got it correct. I should
> use a prop to load the engine. I will need to borrow a two blade constant
> speed prop (able to handle 200 hp) for an year for testing if anyone can
> steer me in the right direction.
> 
> I just got my information package from the  Land and Seas dynamometer
> company. Very nice and professional info. package. They sell just the
> software if you are interested. They have an interesting concept that I am
> considering to put on my plane. Imagine if you could always monitor the
> torque that is going to the prop shaft.  With a small inline transducer
> (circular strain gauge) you can. Then by feeding this data along with the
> rpm and other temperature and pressure inputs into a  laptop running the
> dyno-Max software you have an system that logs data and conditions every
> time you fly. BSFC, fuel flow, and other data is available in real time as
> well as being saved for later review in less stressful times.  If Windows
> was more robust I would even be tempted to use this system as an engine
> monitoring system. Wonder if we can get them to port it to  Linux OS?
> 
> Down load your free software demo kit here:  www.land-and-sea.com
> 
> Doug in Japan.