|
|
Ken,
The turbo 13B is rated at 200 HP, which is at 7lbs of boost, I believe. Since my engine is stock, and not ported, I figured that I'd be lucky to get 160 HP normally aspirated.
If I ever go with no turbo, and I have considered it, I'd probably buy another engine, rebuild it, and port it. I've read that with mild street porting a normally aspirated 13B can deliver about 190-195 HP. That is of course dependant on other factors, such as the intake, injector location, etc.
Based on your information, perhaps the lower compression rotors wouldn't make as much difference as I thought it would, unless the impact on a rotary is different than that of a piston engine.
Steve
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 11:09 am, kenpowell@comcast.net wrote:
Steve,
I think you are overestimating the power loss of converting over to NA. See this link: http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofcrc.htm. My understanding is
that you will only suffer a 2.4 -4.2 HP loss if assuming the NA engine
produced 200 HP (depending on a comparison of 9.4 rotors or 9.7 rotors as
opposed to the 9.0 turbo rotors). Compression ratio is much overated if
you are not trying to make up for radical cam profiles in piston engines.
Ken Powell
Bryant, Arkansas
501-847-4721
C150 / RV-4 under construction
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Steve Brooks <prvt_pilot@yahoo.com>
> Buly,
> With your engine, removing the turbo makes sense. You can probably get
> enough horsepower with the NA setup.
>
> In my case, with a lower compression turbo engine, I'll have to stick
> with the turbo to get enough power.
>
> I have about 42 hours now on my already used stock turbo, with no
> problems. I have been nursing it along though, and don't exceed 5-6 lbs
> of boost on takeoff, and usually fly at 0-2 lbs of boost max. Sometimes I
> cruise around at less power than that to conserve fuel, if I'm just
> flying around.
>
> I do think that the stock turbo is going to fail, and I have all of the
> parts to convert to a T04 turbo, which appears to be the best long term
> turbo solution.
>
> As I recall, when Dave had his turbo trouble, he gutted the turbo, and
> still used his same exhaust system. Is that what you did, or did you redo
> your exhaust ?
>
> Steve Brooks
>
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 11:21 pm, Bulent Aliev wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2006, at 10:13 PM, John Slade wrote:
> > > Joe, Buly
> > > I think the bottom line on my "escapades" is that the stock turbo
> > > just isn't up to the task. So far I have about 25 hours on my T04
> > > Turbonetics + external wastegate setup with zero problems. The
> > > engine is purring very smoothly these days. Just a matter of using
> > > the right tools for the job.
> > > John
> >
> > Just came from the hangar. Managed to convert the engine to NA in 3
> > hours. Didn't run it since it was almost 11PM and I was missing one
> > plug for the cooling port for the turbo.
> > While doing it, I opened up John's old stock turbo that he imported
> > from NZ. Many of the turbine blades were missing chunks.
> > That convinced me that it was the right thing to do. At the moment
> > I'm not up-to spending another 2G's for a T4 turbo after I just spent
> > $2,400 for a prop. Hope I'm able to spin the prop to the static RPM
> > needed? The good part is I can convert it to a 2 blade fast :)
> > Buly
> >
> > --
> > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
|
|