|
|
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
|
|