Return-Path: Received: from imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 575043 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:12:48 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.73; envelope-from=sladerj@bellsouth.net Received: from JSLADE ([65.2.91.228]) by imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20041221041217.MTPZ2130.imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net@JSLADE> for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:12:17 -0500 From: "John Slade" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] info gathering by newbie Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:12:15 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Hi Jeff, You didn't get many answers to your questions (yet), so I'll dive in and attempt to provide some. > Do I have it right that most of the problems associated with using any > auto conversion is using non-aircraft hardware in auxiliary equipment? Not necessarily. It's not a matter of the peripherals being A/C grade. In fact, the "certified" or "A/C grade" items have been the worst quality parts I've had. The ELT, for example, has a badly designed bracket made out of cheap aluminum. Yuk. The Westach aircraft gauge sucked (and its not a vacuum gauge :). In general I think good quality automotive parts (alternators, starters etc. are better tested and more reliable than some of their $600 A/C equivalents. Many of us use a/c grade braided hoses and AN hardware everywhere, but even that's not proven. A lot of rotary flyers use automotive coolant and oil and fuel hoses, and I haven't heard of one blowing out yet. (did I miss any?) I think the 13B oil pressures might blow some aircraft grade coolers. We're all experimenting here, and all our installations are unique in some way or other. It's the lack of standards and proven solutions that tends to bite. Our answer where possible - redundancy. I've had a few problems / failures while flight testing, but always flew home safely - no glider time yet. > To get 250hp out of a 13B do you do more wild porting or put on a turbo? I'll let someone else answer the power questions, but my take on this is that a turbo avoids a muffler and gets you in that range while still being able to idle. At least for us pushers a "wild" port could be a problem with too high an idle on final = high landing speeds. The trick is getting the right turbo (ask me how I know this) that can handle boost at altitude and controlling ignition and mixture to avoid detonation. I think the engine itself can handle the power without a problem. > Does reliability go way down if you try to get that much out of a 13B or is it about the > same if you can keep it cool? I think the latter, but I'll get back to you on that. > Will the renesis be a better option? I guess we are all waiting to see > how the renesis is going to do. I think yes, without a doubt. Tracy's proved it works well, and parts will be less of an issue in the future. > Are the street rodders or anyone else tinkering with the renesis yet? I'd be interested in the answer to this myself. > What's the > difference in the two versions of the renesis (one power rating for the > automatic transmission and another for the manual tranny)? Does the > higher hp version have different porting or just different > intake/exhaust manifolds? I heard from Bruce Turrentine that it doesn't make any difference to us at our rpm level. Hope that helps, John