X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from QMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3822514 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:54:20 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.30.40; envelope-from=cbarber@texasattorney.net Received: from OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.43]) by QMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Y5mT1c0040vp7WLA45tkHp; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:53:44 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.4] ([98.200.105.92]) by OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Y5ti1c0031zdwnW8R5tjE0; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:53:43 +0000 Message-ID: <4A922AE4.5040200@TexasAttorney.net> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:53:40 -0500 From: Christopher Barber User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, Do you know what happened to Leon Promet. When I first started looking at the rotary way back when, he was a wealth of information with many returned emails with a great deal of thought and detail. I seem to remember he was having some health issues though but I never heard anything definitive . John Slade wrote: > >All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. > Not quite true, George. On the advice of two trusted rotary experts > (one of whom was Leon Promet - remember him?), mine has the 9.7 rotors > and 3mm seals. Leon said this just gets you a free 30HP so long as you > don't overboost and you keep the timing & mixture in range. I don't > have any detonation problems boosting to 42 MAP with the IVO prop. I > did notice some detonation / pre-ignition noises early on when running > up with a fixed pitch prop. These went away immediately on throttle > back and didn't do any engine damage. > John Slade > > > George Lendich wrote: >> Gonzalo, >> I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't think it >> did. All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. >> You can put Renesis rotors into RX7's but not the other way around. >> The RX8 rotors are a high compression rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors, >> the RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1 compression. >> I guess you could use a turbo for altitude normalizing, but great >> care would have to used, I can't say I would recommend it. >> Consider peripheral ported RX7 engine with 44mm inlets. >> George (down under) >> >> In Chile there are only a few Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars >> here, but not too many rotaries, and there are no enthusiasts of >> the wankel engine, so for support and parts, I’ll have to go to >> the U.S. anyway. >> >> If I chose and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is >> better, the 2004 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the >> 89-91 or 93-95 as you said? Can the “modern” renesis be use with >> a turbo? >> >> Thanks >> >> Gonzalo. >> >> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf Of *William Wilson >> *Sent:* Domingo, 23 de Agosto de 2009 1:29 >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? >> >> With only a couple of exceptions the two- and three- rotor >> engines take the same parts. Only the "big" center housing and >> the eccentric shaft are really special for the 3-rotor engine. >> Luckily, these don't usually need to be replaced. Of course, the >> manifolds, fuel injection and most of the electronics are unique >> but you won't use the stock parts anyway. Most everything else is >> either the same as, or interchangeable with, the '89-'91 or >> '93-'95 13B turbo. >> >> Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or not you >> can get *those* parts. There is plenty of support in the U.S. for >> rotary engines, since Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are >> used to bringing in Japan-market parts. Is there such support in >> Chile? It is tough enough to build a plane without having to >> build your own engine too. >> >> 2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Giménez Celis > > >> >> Well, actually is not that bad. There are a couple of runways >> 3000 ft long, >> and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from sea level up to 7500 >> ft, but I >> don't plan to go there often, and if I do, the runway is very >> long. I want >> to have a little more power just in case. I think the 200 HP is >> enough, >> right? >> >> Also, what about the parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are >> much more >> available than for the 20B... >> >> Thanks!! >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rotary motors in aircraft >> [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net >> ] On >> >> Behalf Of Dave >> Sent: Sábado, 22 de Agosto de 2009 17:08 >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? >> >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> > > -- > > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html