Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.147.249.9; envelope-from=jslade@canardaviation.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=canardaviation.com;
	h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User;
	b=nONrYh5Ly7hxAaO7RHDlaIO/jZrAAKQ1uYFjSaZZDsV1IlOYHtHF96BkQydXOpDcHX+AhXnSjGCtVMt8BR9pIqe1qiXzP8Wy6gZwDFXGZRopLAI6oG10485C2IyX42Iw;
Message-ID: <4A9298C6.1040605@canardaviation.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:42:30 -0400
From: John Slade <jslade@canardaviation.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?
References: <list-3822509@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3822509@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

No, Chris. I haven't heard from Leon for three of four years. His 
contributions here were extremely valuable, plus I had some fascinating 
direct email correspondence with him.
Perhaps George knows what he's up to.
Having blown three, I can confirm that the stock turbo is unsuitable for 
aviation. The third one was modified by a firm "down under" to increase 
the A/R - that one lasted 11 hours.
John

Christopher Barber wrote:
> 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 <gonza@gimenez.cl
>>>     <mailto: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
>>>     <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
>>>     <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
>
> -- 
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html