X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from web46414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([68.180.199.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with SMTP id 3823238 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:06:55 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.180.199.203; envelope-from=dwayneparkinson@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 45266 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Aug 2009 22:06:20 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1251151580; bh=s70m2TS4xX0dM/hNtvyhKw56+f+Unoqn4ITRlM6AXGE=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=y490sox/ZznkDoMUvmfSEcijNatvgCIfar3SFEnJ6urSAaxVLExrGPXlqYnqnKdPq80TVpVAglYpqkrVjwCS/puNhrUY0c4U0uwNQu4lKQlFM64O/u9OxzZjg7S2IqfLzSj8pIMM87jiGSYwVy9yKN+ywNiWaCh9ArlZ5Hb0dyc= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZFMdNCfHVzyvTa6kJ8DqlN667Cuj7pIsOPXoV7427S5rfttLUVc6Leeqp6Fp7c/k9ILwGrAD61jtNrvNQ9xxLRGN9gOkALjp/X3V5KDctHolU+BXm62MaotRXrhNHMfcepOoFwMw0wUeDlOPR9o5GAuXW6qKVCHUy6bRESwr180=; Message-ID: <511697.42590.qm@web46414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: UoZBfRcVM1kvxC1N6eN2OWb5gkEMUucWCNJoEGodikNFA_0gcmvKf5Xb Received: from [69.11.172.54] by web46414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:06:19 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1358.27 YahooMailWebService/0.7.338.2 References: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Dwayne Parkinson Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-432764703-1251151579=:42590" --0-432764703-1251151579=:42590 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm still waiting for the 16X as well. The rumor on the car sites is that = the 2010 RX8 will have a second engine option. Everyone is guessing that m= eans 16X.=0A=0ASign me up!=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFr= om: George Lendich =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft <= flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=0ASent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:55:03 PM=0AS= ubject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?=0A=0A =0AEd,=0A16X - me too!=0AI wond= er how a 16X single rotor would =0Ago?=0AI wonder how a 16X peripheral port= ed engine would =0Ago?=0AHow their doing those aluminium housings has me = =0Abeat!=0AI wish they would get going on this sooner rather =0Athan later.= =0AGeorge (down under)=0AThe stock Mazda Turbo =0A> really should not, I r= epeat NOT, be used in aircraft application. A =0A> number of folks have p= roven this conclusively. Now IF you run low boost =0A> for a limited amou= nt of time you may be O=0A> K =E2=80=93 a few folks have done this, but I r= eally =0A> wouldn=E2=80=99t chance it. The auto turbo was designed to del= iver perhaps 8- 10 =0A> psi of boost for 30-60 seconds to give you that sp= orts car kick in the seat of =0A> the pants. The turbine housing on the s= tock Mazda turbo is way too small =0A> for our application and will cause = the turbine to overspeed destroying the =0A> turbine and bearings.=0A> =0A= >On the other hand, =0A> using the correct turbo such as the T04 with a la= rger A/R ratio will (as =0A> several have shown) making a reliable turboch= arged application. I have =0A> two Mazda Turbos sitting on my work bench,= but realized after I got them that =0A> they were just not suited for air= craft application. You really want the =0A> turbo as close to the exhaust= as possible to take advantage of the heat energy =0A> of the exhaust. In= fact, Mazda attached them right to the exhaust =0A> manifold =E2=80=93 it= s not the heat that quickly kills the stock turbo in aircraft us, =0A> its= primarily the unsuitability of the turbine housing and the fact they were = =0A> never designed to run hour after hour under boost. =0A> =0A> =0A>I b= elieve there is a =0A> firm down under that will modify the stock Mazda tu= rbo enlarging the A/R ratio =0A> and installing a different compressor =E2= =80=93 but, in my opinion, you are probably =0A> better off to invest in a= turbo designed for this kind of application. =0A> =0A> =0A>Since I don=E2= =80=99t use max =0A> power, except for take off, I have come to the conclu= sion that a turbo just =0A> wouldn=E2=80=99t buy me much except extra weig= ht =E2=80=93 me?, I=E2=80=99m waiting for the 16X =0A> {:>)=0A> =0A>Ed=0A>= =0A> =0A> =0A>Ed =0A> Anderson=0A>Rv-6A N494BW Rotary =0A> Powered=0A>Ma= tthews, =0A> NC=0A>eanderson@carolina.rr.com=0A>http://www.andersonee.com= =0A>http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html=0A>http://www.flyrotary.com/=0A>h= ttp://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW=0A>http://www.rota= ryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm=0A>=0A________________________________= =0A =0A>From:> Rotary motors in aircraft =0A> [mailto:flyrotary@lancairon= line.net] On =0A> Behalf Of George Lendich=0A>Sent: Monday, August 24, 200= 9 2:21 =0A> AM=0A>To: > Rotary motors in aircraft=0A>Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: Three or =0A> two?=0A> =0A>John, =0A> =0A>I should have said all 13B t= urbo's =0A> have low compression rotors at manufacture. I did mention Turb= o used for =0A> normalization,( should have said, using higher compression= rotors). =0A> It is a bit of risky business if not watched carefully =0A= > IMHO.=0A> =0A>Do I remember Leon Promet - sadly =0A> I do, I personally= wouldn't be calling him a trusted rotary expert, and I know =0A> him. He = does however know a lot of knowledgeable people in the rotary =0A> rebuild= ing industry, I've met some of those as =0A> well.=0A> =0A>I think the pro= of has been they =0A> have to be heavily modified for Aviation use to keep= from overspinning in =0A> thinner air. That's my understanding from watch= ing the chaps who have =0A> regularly replaced their turbo.=0A> =0A>I pers= onally believe that keeping =0A> the turbo as far from the exhaust manifol= d and restricting flow to the turbo =0A> is the only sure fire way of keep= ing them alive for any period of time - in =0A> Aviation use.=0A>George (d= own =0A> under)=0A>>All turbo 13B's require low =0A>> compression rotor= s.=0A>>Not quite true, George. On the advice of two trusted =0A>> rotary= experts (one of whom was Leon Promet - remember him?), mine has the =0A>> = 9.7 rotors and 3mm seals.=0A>> Leon said this just gets you a =0A>> f= ree 30HP so long as you don't overboost and you keep the timing & =0A>> = mixture in range. I don't have any detonation problems boosting to 42 MAP = =0A>> with the IVO prop. I did notice some detonation / pre-ignition noi= ses early =0A>> on when running up with a fixed pitch prop. These went a= way immediately on =0A>> throttle back and didn't do any engine damage.= =0A>>John =0A>> Slade=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>George Lendich wrote: =0A>>Gonzalo,= =0A>>I don't know if the Renesis has =0A>> a turbo version, I didn't thi= nk it did. All turbo 13B's require low =0A>> compression rotors.=0A>>You= can put Renesis rotors into =0A>> RX7's but not the other way around. T= he RX8 rotors are a high compression =0A>> rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors= , the RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1 =0A>> compression.=0A>> =0A>>I guess you co= uld use a turbo =0A>> for altitude normalizing, but great care would hav= e to used, I can't say I =0A>> would recommend it.=0A>>Consider peripher= al ported RX7 =0A>> engine with 44mm inlets.=0A>>George (down =0A>> u= nder)=0A>>In =0A>>>=0A>>> Chile there are only a few =0A>>> Rotar= ies. Mazda sell a lot of cars here, but not too many rotaries, and =0A>>> = there are no enthusiasts of the wankel engine, so for support and =0A>= >> parts, I=E2=80=99ll have to go to the=0A>>> U.S. =0A>>> anyway= .=0A>>>If =0A>>> I chose and engine, a two rotor, which way do you thi= nk is better, the =0A>>> 2004 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) = or the 89-91 or 93-95 as you =0A>>> said? Can the =E2=80=9Cmodern=E2= =80=9D renesis be use with a =0A>>> turbo?=0A>>>Thanks=0A>>>Gonzalo. = =0A>>> =0A>>>From:>>> Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lanc= aironline.net] =0A>>> On Behalf Of William =0A>>> Wilson=0A>>>Sent: Do= mingo, 23 =0A>>> de Agosto de 2009 1:29=0A>>>To: Rotary =0A>>> mo= tors in aircraft=0A>>>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or =0A>>> two?=0A= >>>With only a couple of exceptions the two- and =0A>>> three- rotor e= ngines take the same parts. Only the "big" center =0A>>> housing and = the eccentric shaft are really special for the 3-rotor =0A>>> engine. = Luckily, these don't usually need to be replaced. Of =0A>>> course, = the manifolds, fuel injection and most of the electronics are =0A>>> u= nique but you won't use the stock parts anyway. Most everything =0A>>> = else is either the same as, or interchangeable with, the '89-'91 or =0A>>= > '93-'95 13B turbo.=0A>>>=0A>>>Which, of course, brings up the questi= on of =0A>>> whether or not you can get *those* parts. There is plent= y of support =0A>>> in the=0A>>> U.S. for rotary engines, since =0A>>>= Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to bringing in Japan-m= arket =0A>>> parts. Is there such support in=0A>>>=0A>>> Chile ? It = is tough enough =0A>>> to build a plane without having to build your o= wn engine =0A>>> too.=0A>>>2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=C3=A9nez Celis =0A>>>Well, actually is not that bad. There are a couple =0A= >>> of runways 3000 ft long,=0A>>>and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies= from sea =0A>>> level up to 7500 ft, but I=0A>>>don't plan to go ther= e often, and if I do, =0A>>> the runway is very long. I want=0A>>>to h= ave a little more power just in =0A>>> case. I think the 200 HP is eno= ugh,=0A>>>right?=0A>>>=0A>>>Also, what about the =0A>>> parts, it seem= s that the two rotor parts are much more=0A>>>available than =0A>>> fo= r the 20B...=0A>>>=0A>>>Thanks!!=0A>>>=0A>>>Gonzalo=0A>>>=0A>>>-----Origina= l Message-----=0A>>>From: =0A>>> Rotary motors in aircraft =0A>>> = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] =0A>>> On=0A>>>Behalf Of Dave=0A= >>>Sent: S=C3=A1bado, 22 de Agosto de =0A>>> 2009 17:08=0A>>>To: Rotar= y motors in =0A>>> aircraft=0A>>>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or =0A= >>> two?=0A>>>=0A>>>While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth say= ing that =0A>>> none of the=0A>>>very few currently flying turbo rotar= ies have had trouble =0A>>> free=0A>>>installations.=0A>>>=0A>>>I know= of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and =0A>>> both have had more than on= e=0A>>>turbo failure in the process of finding =0A>>> what works.=0A>>= >=0A>>>I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its turbo =0A>>> = version.=0A>>>=0A>>>What sort of runway length and density altitude are we = =0A>>> talking about,=0A>>>where you intend to operate?=0A>>>Dave=0A>>= >=0A>>>Thomas Mann =0A>>> wrote:=0A>>>>=0A>>>> A two rotor engine prod= uce close to 200 hp at 291 =0A>>> LBS (132 K GS)=0A>>>>=0A>>>> A =0A>>= > two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149=0A>>> K GS)= =0A>>>>=0A>>>> A three rotor engine can =0A>>> produce 300hp at 390 LB= S (177=0A>>> K GS)=0A>>>>=0A>>>> *From:*=0A>>> Rotary motors in aircraft [m= ailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=0A>>>> =0A>>> *On Behalf Of *Gonzal= o A. Gim=C3=A9nez Celis=0A>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August =0A>>> 22, 200= 9 3:05 PM=0A>>>> *To:* Rotary motors in =0A>>> aircraft=0A>>>> *Subjec= t:* [FlyRotary] Three or =0A>>> two?=0A>>>>=0A>>>> Hi group. As I told= in previous questions, I=E2=80=99m =0A>>> building a Cozy M K IV,=0A>= >>> =0A>>> and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have between 20= 0 and =0A>>> 250=0A>>>> HP, since in=0A>>> Chile we don=E2=80=99t have= such long runways like =0A>>> in the=0A>>> U.S.=0A>>>> and is a prett= y =0A>>> mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is=0A>>>> bett= er, a three =0A>>> or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? = Can=0A>>>> I use a =0A>>> turbo in a two rotor engine without affectin= g reliability and=0A>>>> =0A>>> weight? Etc=E2=80=A6=0A>>>>=0A>>>> Tha= nks.=0A>>>>=0A>>>> =0A>>> Gonzalo=0A>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>> Chile=0A>>>>=0A>= >>=0A>>>=0A>>>--=0A>>>Homepage: =0A>>> http://www.flyrotary.com/=0A>>= >Archive and UnSub:=0A>>>http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/L= ist.html=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>--=0A>>>Homepage: =0A>>> http://www.flyrota= ry.com/=0A>>>Archive and UnSub: =0A>>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/l= ists/flyrotary/List.html=0A>> =0A>>--=0A>> =0A>>Homepage: http://www.flyr= otary.com/=0A>> =0A>>Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81= /lists/flyrotary/List.html=0A>=0A>=0A>__________ Information from ESET NOD3= 2 =0A> Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) =0A>= __________=0A>=0A>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.=0A>=0A= >http://www.eset.com=0A=0A=0A --0-432764703-1251151579=:42590 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm still waiting for the 16X as well.  The rumor on the car= sites is that the 2010 RX8 will have a second engine option.  Everyon= e is guessing that means 16X.

Sign me up!

From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>=
To: Rotary motors in a= ircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:55:03 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?

=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A
Ed,
=0A
16X - me too!
=0A
I wond= er how a 16X single rotor would =0Ago?
=0A
I wonder how a 16X peripheral ported engine would =0Ago?
=0A
How their doing those alu= minium housings has me =0Abeat!
=0A
I wish they would get going on this sooner rather =0Athan later.
=0A
George (down under)
=0A
=0A <= div class=3D"Section1">=0A

The stock Mazda Turbo =0A really should not, I repeat NOT, be use= d in aircraft application.  A =0A number of folks have proven this co= nclusively.  Now IF you run low boost =0A for a limited amount of tim= e you may be O=0A K =E2=80=93 a few folks have done this, but I really =0A = wouldn=E2=80=99t chance it.  The auto turbo was designed to deliver p= erhaps 8- 10 =0A psi of boost for 30-60 seconds to give you that sports ca= r kick in the seat of =0A the pants.  The turbine housing on the stoc= k Mazda turbo is way too small =0A for our application and will cause the = turbine to overspeed destroying the =0A turbine and bearings.

=0A

 =

=0A

On the other hand, =0A using the correct turbo such as the T04 with= a larger A/R ratio will (as =0A several have shown) making a reliable tur= bocharged application.  I have =0A two Mazda Turbos sitting on my wor= k bench, but realized after I got them that =0A they were just not suited = for aircraft application.  You really want the =0A turbo as close to = the exhaust as possible to take advantage of the heat energy =0A of the ex= haust.  In fact, Mazda attached them right to the exhaust =0A manifol= d =E2=80=93 its not the heat that quickly kills the stock turbo in aircraft= us, =0A its primarily the unsuitability of the turbine housing and the fa= ct they were =0A never designed to run hour after hour under boost.  = =0A

=0A

 

=0A

I believe there is a =0A firm down under that will = modify the stock Mazda turbo enlarging the A/R ratio =0A and installing a = different compressor =E2=80=93 but, in my opinion, you are probably =0A be= tter off to invest in a turbo designed for this kind of application. =0A <= /span>

=0A

 

=0A

Since I don=E2=80=99t use max =0A power, except for take o= ff, I have come to the conclusion that a turbo just =0A wouldn=E2=80=99t b= uy me much except extra weight =E2=80=93 me?, I=E2=80=99m waiting for the 1= 6X =0A {:>)

=0A

 

=0A

<= font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"navy" size=3D"2">Ed

=0A

 

=0A

  =0A

 

=0A
=0A

Ed =0A= Anderson

=0A

Rv-= 6A N494BW Rotary =0A Powered

=0A

Matthews, =0A NC

=0A

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

=0A

http://www.andersonee.com

=0A

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

=0A <= p>http://www.flyrotary.com/

=0A

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#= N494BW

=0A

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A

From:<= /b> =0A Rotary motors in aircraf= t =0A [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On =0A Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:21 =0A AM
= To:=0A Rotary motors in aircra= ft
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: Three or =0A two?

=0A

 

=0A
=0A

<= font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"black" size=3D"2">John, =0A

=0A
=0A I should have said all 13B turb= o's =0A have low compression rotors at manufacture. I did mention Turbo us= ed for =0A normalization,( should have said, using higher compre= ssion rotors).  =0A It is a bit of risky business if not watched care= fully =0A IMHO.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

Do I remember Leon Promet - sadly = =0A I do, I personally wouldn't be calling him a trusted rotary expert, an= d I know =0A him. He does however know a lot of knowledgeable people in th= e rotary =0A rebuilding industry, I've met some of those as =0A well.

=0A
=0A

&= nbsp;

=0A
=0A

I think the proof has been they =0A have to be heavily mod= ified for Aviation use to keep from overspinning in =0A thinner air. That'= s my understanding from watching the chaps who have =0A regularly replaced= their turbo.

=0A
=0A

 

=0A
=0A

I personally believe that keeping =0A the= turbo as far from the exhaust manifold and restricting flow to the turbo = =0A is the only sure fire way of keeping them alive for any period of time= - in =0A Aviation use.

=0A
=0A

George (down =0A under)

=0A
=0A

>= All turbo 13B's require low =0A compression rotors.
Not q= uite true, George. On the advice of two trusted =0A rotary experts (one = of whom was Leon Promet - remember him?), mine has the =0A 9.7 rotors an= d 3mm seals.=0A Leon said this just gets you a =0A free 30HP so long as = you don't overboost and you keep the timing & =0A mixture in range. = I don't have any detonation problems boosting to 42 MAP =0A with the IVO= prop. I did notice some detonation / pre-ignition noises early =0A on w= hen running up with a fixed pitch prop. These went away immediately on =0A = throttle back and didn't do any engine damage.
John =0A Slade
<= br>
George Lendich wrote:

=0A
=0A

Gonzalo,

=0A=
=0A

I don't know = if the Renesis has =0A a turbo version, I didn't think it did. All turbo=  13B's require low =0A compression rotors.

= =0A
=0A

You can pu= t Renesis rotors into =0A RX7's but not the other way around. The RX8 ro= tors are a high compression =0A rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors, the = RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1 =0A compression.

=0A=
=0A

 <= /p>

=0A
=0A

= I guess you could use a turbo =0A for altitude normalizing, but great ca= re would have to used, I can't say I =0A would recommend it.

=0A
=0A

Consider peripheral ported RX7 =0A engine with 44mm inlets.

=0A
=0A

George (down =0A under)

=0A
=0A

In =0A=0A = Chile there are only a few =0A Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars her= e, but not too many rotaries, and =0A there are no enthusiasts of the = wankel engine,  so for support and =0A parts, I=E2=80=99ll have t= o go to the=0A U.S. =0A anyway.

=0A

If =0A I chose= and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is better, the =0A 20= 04 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or 93-95 as you =0A= said? Can the =E2=80=9Cmodern=E2=80=9D renesis be use with a =0A = turbo?

=0A

Thanks

=0A

Gonzalo. =0A

=0A =0A

With only a couple of exceptions th= e two- and =0A three- rotor engines take the same parts.  Only th= e "big" center =0A housing and the eccentric shaft are really special = for the 3-rotor =0A engine.  Luckily, these don't usually need to= be replaced.  Of =0A course, the manifolds, fuel injection and m= ost of the electronics are =0A unique but you won't use the stock part= s anyway.  Most everything =0A else is either the same as, or int= erchangeable with, the '89-'91 or =0A '93-'95 13B turbo.

Which,= of course, brings up the question of =0A whether or not you can get *= those* parts.  There is plenty of support =0A in the=0A U.S. for = rotary engines, since =0A Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are us= ed to bringing in Japan-market =0A parts.  Is there such support = in=0A=0A Chile ?  It is tough enough =0A to build a plane without= having to build your own engine =0A too.

=0A <= div>=0A

2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim= =C3=A9nez Celis <gonza@gimenez.cl>= ;

=0A

Well, ac= tually is not that bad. There are a couple =0A of runways 3000 ft long= ,
and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from sea =0A level up to 750= 0 ft, but I
don't plan to go there often, and if I do, =0A the runw= ay is very long. I want
to have a little more power just in =0A cas= e. I think the 200 HP is enough,
right?

Also, what about the =0A = parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are much more
available th= an =0A for the 20B...

Thanks!!

Gonzalo

=0A =
=0A


-----Original M= essage-----
From: =0A Rotary motors in aircraft =0A [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline= .net] =0A On

=0A
=0A

= Behalf Of Dave
Sent: S=C3=A1bado, 22 de = Agosto de =0A 2009 17:08
To: Rotary motors in =0A aircraft

=0A
=0A
=0A

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or =0A two?
While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that =0A none o= f the
very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble =0A = free
installations.

I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and = =0A both have had more than one
turbo failure in the process of fin= ding =0A what works.

I do not know if Mistral is currently sell= ing its turbo =0A version.

What sort of runway length and densi= ty altitude are we =0A talking about,
where you intend to operate?<= br>Dave

Thomas Mann =0A wrote:
>
> A two rotor engi= ne produce close to 200 hp at 291 =0A LBS (132 K GS)
>
> A= =0A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149=0A K GS)<= br>>
> A three rotor engine can =0A produce 300hp at 390 LBS = (177=0A K GS)
>
> *From:*=0A Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:= flyrotary@lancairon= line.net]
> =0A *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=C3=A9nez Celis=
> *Sent:* Saturday, August =0A 22, 2009 3:05 PM
> *To:* R= otary motors in =0A aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or = =0A two?
>
> Hi group. As I told in previous questions, I= =E2=80=99m =0A building a Cozy M K IV,
> =0A and I like the= Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 and =0A 250
> HP,= since in=0A Chile we don=E2=80=99t have such long runways like =0A in= the=0A U.S.
> and is a pretty =0A mountainous country. Regardin= g this, which way is
> better, a three =0A or two rotor engine? = Is the three rotor too heavy? Can
> I use a =0A turbo in a two r= otor engine without affecting reliability and
> =0A weight? Etc= =E2=80=A6
>
> Thanks.
>
> =0A Gonzalo
><= br>>=0A Chile
>


--
Homepage: =0A  http://w= ww.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:
http://m= ail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html


--=
Homepage: =0A  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnS= ub:   =0A http://mail.lancaironli= ne.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

= =0A

 

--
  
<=
span style=3D"FONT-SIZE:10pt;">Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
<=
span style=3D"FONT-SIZE:10pt;">  
Archive and UnSub:   http:/=
/mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
=0A



__= ________ Information from ESET NOD32 =0A Antivirus, version of virus signa= ture database 3267 (20080714) =0A __________

The message was checke= d by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

=0A

=0A=0A= --0-432764703-1251151579=:42590--