X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3821662 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:26:15 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (sv1-1.per.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.68]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF32173675 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:25:35 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 836B3BEC005 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:25:34 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:25:35 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090822-0, 08/22/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Dave/Gonzalo, Should be able to get more from a peripheral ported engine, perhaps the 250 hp needed. Might want to add the weight of a PSRU of 45 lbs to those weights given. George (down under) > While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none of the > very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble free > installations. > > I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and both have had more than one > turbo failure in the process of finding what works. > > I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its turbo version. > > What sort of runway length and density altitude are we talking about, > where you intend to operate? > Dave > > Thomas Mann wrote: >> >> A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp at 291 LBS (132 KGS) >> >> A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149 KGS) >> >> A three rotor engine can produce 300hp at 390 LBS (177 KGS) >> >> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] >> *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Giménez Celis >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:05 PM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or two? >> >> Hi group. As I told in previous questions, I’m building a Cozy MK IV, and >> I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 and 250 HP, >> since in Chile we don’t have such long runways like in the U.S. and is a >> pretty mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is better, a three >> or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? Can I use a turbo in a >> two rotor engine without affecting reliability and weight? Etc… >> >> Thanks. >> >> Gonzalo >> >> Chile >> > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >