X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3822616 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:43:57 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090824114318266.EGUT17593@cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com> for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:43:18 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: Low boost hi boost was [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:41:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01CA248E.507A9FD0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Thread-Index: Acokb71WtHekFVEoSlWsatV4u4jDbgAPrQRA Message-Id: <20090824114318266.EGUT17593@cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01CA248E.507A9FD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John is correct, George. =20 An engine does not really care how the combustion pressures inside the chamber are achieved (if fact - it don=92t even know {:>). You can = achieve high camber pressure by using high compression pistons and low boost or = low compression pistons and high boost to get the same combustion chamber pressures. IF you are running very high boost then low compression pistons/rotors may be in order. =20 One of the advantages of using normal or even high compression pistons/rotors is that you get immediate response and less of a turbo = lag. Also since you are using less boost there is less exhaust back pressure = and the turbo does not have to work as hard. You are less likely to = encounter compressor surge at high altitude using low boost, etc. =20 Regardless how you go about it, the key element is control of the combustion chamber pressures within limits. As long as you don=92t = exceed that you are not likely to get into detonation or other bad things. =20 Now when installing a turbo in a passenger car where the driver may not = have a clue about these things, then the manufacture will err on the side of caution and put low compression pistons in to prevent someone from = blowing the engine (as readily). I have turbocharged cars and have managed to shear the ring lan off the pistons due to over zealous application of = boost {:>) =20 My $0.02 Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm =20 _____ =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Slade Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:02 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 >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. =20 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=92ll have to go to the U.S. anyway. =20 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 =93modern=94 renesis be use with a turbo? =20 Thanks =20 Gonzalo.=20 =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? =20 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=92m 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=92t 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=85 > > 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 =20 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01CA248E.507A9FD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John is correct, = George.

 

An engine does not really care how = the combustion pressures inside the chamber are achieved (if fact - it = don’t even know {:>).=A0 You can achieve high camber pressure by using high compression pistons and low boost or low compression pistons and high = boost to get the same combustion chamber pressures.=A0 IF you are running very = high boost then low compression pistons/rotors may be in = order.

 

One of the advantages of using = normal or even high compression pistons/rotors is that you get immediate response = and less of a turbo lag.=A0 Also since you are using less boost there is = less exhaust =A0back pressure and the turbo does not have to work as hard. You are = less likely to encounter compressor surge at high altitude using low boost, = etc.

 

=A0Regardless =A0how you go about = it, the key element is control of the combustion chamber pressures within limits.=A0 = As long as you don’t exceed that you are not likely to =A0get into = detonation or other bad things.

 

Now when installing a turbo in a = passenger car where the driver may not have a clue about these things, then the manufacture will err on the side of caution and put low compression = pistons in to prevent someone from blowing the engine (as readily).=A0 =A0I have = turbocharged cars and have managed to shear the ring lan off the pistons due to over = zealous application of boost {:>)

 

My = $0.02

From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Slade
Sent: Monday, August 24, = 2009 12:02 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or two?

 

>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@lancaironlin= e.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 <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


-----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.h= tml


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

 




__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

--

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

Archive and UnSub:   =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01CA248E.507A9FD0--