Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.165; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <426D27D5.60208@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:24:37 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Apex Slot Wear/ Grinding for 3mm Seals
References: <list-913734@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-913734@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Of course we have to remember that 7400 output rpm is just a tad under 
2500 rotor rpm.  That's probably why it's so effortless.  A mere 4000 
rotor rpm would be 12000 shaft rpm.
It ain't quite as awesome as it sounds ... Jim S.

kenpowell@comcast.net wrote:

> Hi Lynn,
> I didn't realize that you kept revs above 8000 rpm for an entire race 
> (and thus an entire season).  Is this why you tell us that an engine 
> with 9.4 rotors will hold 7400 rpm practically forever and that 7400 
> rpm just isn't that high for a rotary?  (proven on the track under 
> racing conditions!!!)  You have been telling me this for 4 years and I 
> still have a little trouble believing that these engines rev so 
> effortlessly.  This is sorta (Arkie word) hard to comprehend because I 
> KNOW what will happen to my Mustang motor if it were to see 7400 rpm.  
> It's humorous that even after learning about the forces involved and 
> the capabilities of the rotary how hard it is to not let your thinking 
> be constrained by the limitations of an unrelated engine type (auto 
> and aircraft).
>
> Ken Powell
> Bryant, Arkansas
> 501-847-4721
>