Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 575448 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:19:43 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.36; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20041221161915.CVRI8778.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:19:15 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: info gathering Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:19:29 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c4e778$d9497be0$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4E735.CB263BE0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4E735.CB263BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Do I have it right that most of the problems associated with using any=20 auto conversion is using non-aircraft hardware in auxiliary equipment? =20 =20 I agree that most of the problems are with auxiliary equipment, but not because of using non-aircraft hardware. It is more the issue of using "inappropriate" hardware and design approaches. In any case; the application must meet the need; and aircraft hardware could just as = likely not meet the need. =20 =20 Perhaps the biggest issue (already mentioned) is that we are at a point; = and perhaps in an activity, where each installation has a number of firsts. = And even where they are not "firsts" they frequently copies of what has not = yet been proven. So there is a lot of "build it and bust" approach to = figuring out what is needed; and, I'd suggest - perhaps not enough appreciation = for the benefits of some sound engineering and/or testing beforehand. =20 To get 250hp out of a 13B do you do=20 more wild porting or put on a turbo? =20 =20 You put on a turbo. The reliability of the engine probably does not = suffer - the rotary being very robust unit. The reliability of the = installation probably does because of the added set of design needs to be met. But a thorough approach in selecting the correct turbo for the job, and = executing the additional plumbing and cooling requirements should result in a very good application. =20 Will the renesis be a better option? I guess we are all waiting to see=20 how the renesis is going to do. =20 Seems to me to be a better option. The additional power over a 13B is primarily a result of operating at a higher RPM; which it can do nicely because of the lighter rotors and some other improvements. The power, = the relative reasonable cost of a brand new engine, and the ongoing = availability of parts; I think make it very attractive. =20 Just my opinions - FWIW =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4E735.CB263BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Do I have it right that most of the problems associated with using any =

auto conversion is using non-aircraft hardware in auxiliary equipment?  =

 

I agree that most of the problems are with = auxiliary equipment, but not because of using non-aircraft hardware.  It is = more the issue of using “inappropriate” hardware and design = approaches.  In any case; the application must meet the need; and aircraft hardware = could just as likely not meet the need.  

 

Perhaps the biggest issue (already mentioned) is = that we are at a point; and perhaps in an activity, where each installation has = a number of firsts.  And even where they are not “firsts” = they frequently copies of what has not yet been proven.  So there is a = lot of “build it and bust” approach to figuring out what is needed; and, = I’d suggest – perhaps not enough appreciation for the benefits of some = sound engineering and/or testing beforehand.

 

To get 250hp out of a 13B do you do

more wild porting or put on a turbo? 

 

You put on a turbo.  The reliability of the = engine probably does not suffer – the rotary being very robust = unit.  The reliability of the installation probably does because of the added set = of design needs to be met.  But a thorough approach in selecting the = correct turbo for the job, and executing the additional plumbing and cooling requirements should result in a very good application.

 

Will the renesis be a better option?  I guess we are all waiting to see =

how the renesis is going to do.

 

Seems to me = to be a better option.  The additional power over a 13B is primarily a = result of operating at a higher RPM; which it can do nicely because of the lighter = rotors and some other improvements.  The power, the relative reasonable = cost of a brand new engine, and the ongoing availability of parts; I think make it = very attractive.

 <= /font>

Just my = opinions – FWIW

 <= /font>

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4E735.CB263BE0--