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.

 

Just my opinions – FWIW

 

Al