|
John,
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:
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 <gonza@gimenez.cl>
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
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
|