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 3822526 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:22:01 -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 A392E173A83 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:21:21 +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 5A119BEC025 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:21:18 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <3F1D23E9685B4DECB6E597E498BE3179@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:21:19 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA24D6.E9B36590" 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 090823-0, 08/23/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA24D6.E9B36590 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John,=20 I should have said all 13B turbo's have low compression rotors at = manufacture. I did mention Turbo used for normalization,( should have = said, using higher compression rotors). It is a bit of risky business = if not watched carefully IMHO. Do I remember Leon Promet - sadly I do, I personally wouldn't be calling = him a trusted rotary expert, and I know him. He does however know a lot = of knowledgeable people in the rotary rebuilding industry, I've met some = of those as well. I think the proof has been they have to be heavily modified for Aviation = use to keep from overspinning in thinner air. That's my understanding = from watching the chaps who have regularly replaced their turbo. I personally believe that keeping the turbo as far from the exhaust = manifold and restricting flow to the turbo is the only sure fire way of = keeping them alive for any period of time - in Aviation use. George (down under) >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:=20 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.=20 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. Gim=E9nez 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: S=E1bado, 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. Gim=E9nez 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA24D6.E9B36590 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
I should have said all 13B turbo's have = low=20 compression rotors at manufacture. I did mention Turbo used for=20 normalization,( should have said, using higher compression = rotors). =20 It is a bit of risky business if not watched carefully = IMHO.
 
Do I remember Leon Promet - sadly I do, = I=20 personally wouldn't be calling him a trusted rotary expert, and I know = him. He=20 does however know a lot of knowledgeable people in the rotary rebuilding = industry, I've met some of those as well.
 
I think the proof has been they have to = be heavily=20 modified for Aviation use to keep from overspinning in thinner air. = That's my=20 understanding from watching the chaps who have regularly replaced their=20 turbo.
 
I personally believe that keeping the = turbo as far=20 from the exhaust manifold and restricting flow to the turbo is the only = sure=20 fire way of keeping them alive for any period of time - in Aviation=20 use.
George (down under)
>All turbo 13B's require low compression = rotors.
Not=20 quite true, George. On the advice of two trusted rotary experts (one = of whom=20 was Leon Promet - remember him?), mine has the 9.7 rotors and 3mm = seals. Leon=20 said this just gets you a free 30HP so long as you don't overboost and = you=20 keep the timing & mixture in range. I don't have any detonation = problems=20 boosting to 42 MAP with the IVO prop. I did notice some detonation /=20 pre-ignition noises early on when running up with a fixed pitch prop. = These=20 went away immediately on throttle back and didn't do any engine=20 damage.
John Slade


George Lendich wrote:=20
Gonzalo,
I don't know if the Renesis has a = turbo=20 version, I didn't think it did. All turbo 13B's require low = compression=20 rotors.
You can put Renesis rotors into = RX7's but not=20 the other way around. The RX8 rotors are a high compression rotor, = higher=20 than Rx7 rotors, the RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1=20 compression.
 
I guess you could use a turbo for = altitude=20 normalizing, but great care would have to used, I can't say I would=20 recommend it.
Consider peripheral ported RX7 = engine with 44mm=20 inlets.
George (down under)

In=20 Chile there are only a few Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars = here, but=20 not too many rotaries, and there are no enthusiasts of the wankel = engine,=20  so for support and parts, I=92ll have to go to the U.S.=20 anyway.

If=20 I chose and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is better, = the=20 2004 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or 93-95 = as you=20 said? Can the =93modern=94 renesis be use with a = turbo?

Thanks

Gonzalo.=20

From: = Rotary motors=20 in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironlin= e.net]=20 On Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Domingo, 23 de = Agosto=20 de 2009 1:29
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?

With only a = couple of=20 exceptions the two- and three- rotor engines take the same = parts. =20 Only the "big" center housing and the eccentric shaft are really = special=20 for the 3-rotor engine.  Luckily, these don't usually need to = be=20 replaced.  Of course, the manifolds, fuel injection and most = of the=20 electronics are unique but you won't use the stock parts = anyway. =20 Most everything else is either the same as, or interchangeable = with, the=20 '89-'91 or '93-'95 13B turbo.

Which, of course, brings up = the=20 question of whether or not you can get *those* parts.  There = is=20 plenty of support in the U.S. for rotary engines, since Mazda sold = lots of=20 RX cars and tuners are used to bringing in Japan-market = parts.  Is=20 there such support in Chile?  It is tough enough to build a = plane=20 without having to build your own engine too.

2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis <gonza@gimenez.cl>

Well, actually is not that bad. There are a = couple of=20 runways 3000 ft long,
and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from = sea=20 level up to 7500 ft, but I
don't plan to go there often, and if = I do,=20 the runway is very long. I want
to have a little more power = just in=20 case. I think the 200 HP is enough,
right?

Also, what = about the=20 parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are much = more
available than=20 for the 20B...

Thanks!!

Gonzalo


-----Original Message-----
From: = Rotary motors=20 in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 On

Behalf Of Dave
Sent: S=E1bado, 22 de = Agosto de 2009=20 17:08
To: Rotary motors in aircraft

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or = two?

While I=20 am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none of = the
very few=20 currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble=20 free
installations.

I know of John Slade and Dave = Leonard, and=20 both have had more than one
turbo failure in the process of = finding=20 what works.

I do not know if Mistral is currently selling = its turbo=20 version.

What sort of runway length and density altitude = are we=20 talking about,
where you intend to = operate?
Dave

Thomas Mann=20 wrote:
>
> A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp = at 291=20 LBS (132 KGS)
>
> A two rotor with turbo can produce = 230 hp at=20 328 LBS (149 KGS)
>
> A three rotor engine can produce = 300hp=20 at 390 LBS (177 KGS)
>
> *From:* Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
>=20 *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis
> *Sent:* = Saturday, August=20 22, 2009 3:05 PM
> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft
>=20 *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or two?
>
> Hi group. As = I told=20 in previous questions, I=92m building a Cozy MK IV,
> and I = like the=20 Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 and 250
> HP, = since in=20 Chile we don=92t have such long runways like in the U.S.
> = and is a=20 pretty mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is
> = better, a=20 three or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? = Can
> I use=20 a turbo in a two rotor engine without affecting reliability = and
>=20 weight? Etc=85
>
> Thanks.
>
>=20 Gonzalo
>
> Chile
>


--
Homepage: =  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l


--
Homepage:=20  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:  =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l


--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CA24D6.E9B36590--