|
Ed,
16X - me too!
I wonder how a 16X single rotor would
go?
I wonder how a 16X peripheral ported engine would
go?
How their doing those aluminium housings has me
beat!
I wish they would get going on this sooner rather
than later.
George (down under)
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 – a few folks have done this, but I really
wouldn’t 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.
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 – 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.
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?
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.
>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:
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.
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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
|