X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3822636 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:54:39 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090824115359841.EKSS12674@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com> for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:53:59 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:52:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01CA248F.CEE61970" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Thread-Index: AcokgzMXeL0Qpi0iSUO7CLSKS9yf4QALL7gA Message-Id: <20090824115359841.EKSS12674@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01CA248F.CEE61970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The stock Mazda Turbo really should not, I repeat NOT, be used in = aircraft application. A number of folks have proven this conclusively. Now IF = you run low boost for a limited amount of time you may be OK =96 a few folks = have done this, but I really wouldn=92t chance it. The auto turbo was = designed to deliver perhaps 8- 10 psi of boost for 30-60 seconds to give you that = sports car kick in the seat of the pants. The turbine housing on the stock = Mazda turbo is way too small for our application and will cause the turbine to overspeed destroying the turbine and bearings. =20 On the other hand, using the correct turbo such as the T04 with a larger = A/R ratio will (as several have shown) making a reliable turbocharged application. I have two Mazda Turbos sitting on my work bench, but = realized after I got them that they were just not suited for aircraft = application. You really want the turbo as close to the exhaust as possible to take advantage of the heat energy of the exhaust. In fact, Mazda attached = them right to the exhaust manifold =96 its not the heat that quickly kills = the stock turbo in aircraft us, its primarily the unsuitability of the = turbine housing and the fact they were never designed to run hour after hour = under boost. =20 =20 I believe there is a firm down under that will modify the stock Mazda = turbo enlarging the A/R ratio and installing a different compressor =96 but, = in my opinion, you are probably better off to invest in a turbo designed for = this kind of application.=20 =20 Since I don=92t use max power, except for take off, I have come to the conclusion that a turbo just wouldn=92t buy me much except extra weight = =96 me?, I=92m waiting for the 16X {:>) =20 Ed =20 =20 =20 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 George Lendich Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:21 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 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. =20 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. =20 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. =20 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. =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. 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? 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=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 -- =20 Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ =20 Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01CA248F.CEE61970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The stock Mazda Turbo really should = not, I repeat NOT, be used in aircraft application.=A0 A number of folks have = proven this conclusively.=A0 Now IF you run low boost for a limited amount of = time you may be OK – a few = folks have done this, but I really wouldn’t chance it.=A0 The auto turbo was = designed to deliver perhaps 8- 10 psi of boost for 30-60 seconds to give you that = sports car kick in the seat of the pants.=A0 The turbine housing on the stock = Mazda turbo is way too small for our application and will cause the turbine to overspeed destroying the turbine and = bearings.

 

On the other hand, using the = correct turbo such as the T04 with a larger A/R ratio will (as several have shown) = making a reliable turbocharged application.=A0 I have two Mazda Turbos sitting on = my work bench, but realized after I got them that they were just not suited for aircraft application.=A0 You really want the turbo as close to the = exhaust as possible to take advantage of the heat energy of the exhaust.=A0 In = fact, Mazda attached them right to the exhaust manifold – its not the heat = that quickly kills the stock turbo in aircraft us, its primarily the unsuitability of = the turbine housing and the fact they were never designed to run hour after = hour under boost.=A0

 

I believe there is a firm down = under that will modify the stock Mazda turbo enlarging the A/R ratio and installing = a different compressor – but, in my opinion, you are probably better = off to invest in a turbo designed for this kind of application. =

 

Since I don’t use max power, = except for take off, I have come to the conclusion that a turbo just = wouldn’t buy me much except extra weight – me?, I’m waiting for the = 16X {:>)

 

Ed

 

 

 

From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Monday, August 24, = 2009 2:21 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or two?

 

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.

I= f 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?

T= hanks

G= onzalo.

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

 

--
 
Homepage:=A0 =
http://www.flyrotary.com/
 
Archive and UnSub:=A0=A0 =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



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

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01CA248F.CEE61970--