X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-bw0-f226.google.com ([209.85.218.226] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4169046 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:56:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.218.226; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so569803bwz.7 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:55:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=uSpBWkDHOR9nD2k2xkqrT4Sx8QgvyipjWkOTsjJeG/g=; b=qycTsgYD693kOYzqyDNgzEmrPMUXIUr27IWj3RpkaTa8opVSMW/OKMgdtDA7MZui61 2kK1M8VmOwkk8xNKTBAhAItlO9Mjm2M/3pjkZAdtWZnQXgZBTtH/lt9Y/02UNs7aeAKa kmC+gF9Dk9CqS2xJkXm5XT306HhXfL+n93LCI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=HuU/ZN4YpE3H6ABj+X1JIFnDr7IKFTmRukiXP6pQUuT+YWXyPFUnmqLOcNBkaGB2jA 8jfEz5K8FPTto/hYTlyJU7Vf4iqXNrgMKvK9jAVEwHB0qKrmCEX19b23cBZcf2zOTUEh 02yFHJLTzArYgtgwuWv1mY6hfnVBnaT9v6ZG4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.25.209 with SMTP id a17mr1318647bkc.104.1268837750679; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:55:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:55:50 -0500 Message-ID: <5cf132c1003170755y78fdd078u2ced7efd3cba9d8a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Considerations From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325557e1e68293e0482004f9b --000325557e1e68293e0482004f9b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris, I'm with Al on this one. I chose the 20B for the extra reliability of a third rotor rationalizing that if I lost a rotor, there would be two more t= o get me home. Also, the 3-rotor is a little smoother as it fires every 120* vs. 180* for the 2-rotor. What we need is an all aluminum 3-rotor! Mark S. On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Al Gietzen wrote: > Chris; > > I know little about turbocharging; so I can=92t help you on that score. = But > I did spend some time way back about the decision of 20B vs turbo 13B. T= hat > is a fairly even tradeoff, so when you say =93that ship has sailed for me= =94 I=92d > agree. > > > > My reasons for finally choosing the 20B: I think comparing the total weig= ht > of the installation there isn=92t a big difference =96 adding the turbo, = the > intercooler and the extra plumbing is close to adding another rotor and t= he > big intermediate housing. I also felt that adding a rotor added some > redundancy, whereas the turbo added more complexity and potential failure > modes. It seemed to me that pushing 2 rotors harder to get the power of = 3 > added stress to the engine; but I think the the rotary can handle it, so > that=92s not much of an issue. And the 20B fits pretty well on the Veloc= ity > . > > > > Given where you are with the 13B; and the collective experience and > knowledge now available with turbos in this application; I=92d say =93go = for > it=94. > > > > Al > > > > > > Al G did it with a 20b in the same kit airframe. However, that ship has > sailed for me. > > Actually, that brings up another issue I have been curious about. Why so > much preference to a relatively hard to find and expensive 20b over a > turbo??????? I noticed it routinely in the achieves. I understand the 20b= is > more powerful out of the box and the conventional wisdom seems to say > the 20b is simpler...tubo's add complexity. Well, the 20b does have an ex= tra > moving part ....but, unlike the turbo option the 20b does not do much = for > you in thin air, the turbo does. Also, a 13b turbo install would still se= em > to be lighter than a 20b N/A install. What am I missing or do we just rea= lly > like the cool factor of the 20b (no disagreement there from me). > > I once again throw myself at the mercy of the collective wisdom for > edification. While y'all pine away on it all, I will be confusing myself > further doing some more surfing and remind myself of the other questions = I > meant to ask. > > As always, thanks. > > All the best, > > Chris Barber > > Houston, GSOT > --000325557e1e68293e0482004f9b Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris,
=A0
I'm with Al on this one.=A0 I chose the 20B for the extra reliabil= ity of a third rotor rationalizing that if I lost a rotor, there would be t= wo more to get me home.=A0 Also, the 3-rotor is a little smoother as it fir= es every 120* vs. 180* for the 2-rotor.=A0=A0What we need is an all aluminu= m 3-rotor!
=A0
Mark S.=A0

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Al Gietzen <ALVentures@cox.net= > wrote:

Chris;

I know litt= le about turbocharging; so I can=92t help you on that score. =A0But I did s= pend some time way back about the decision of 20B vs turbo 13B.=A0 That is = a fairly even tradeoff, so when you say =93that ship has sailed for me=94 = I=92d agree.

=A0

My reasons for finally choosing the 20B: I think comparing the total weigh= t of the installation there isn=92t a big difference =96 adding the turbo, = the intercooler and the extra plumbing is close to adding another rotor and= the big intermediate housing. I also felt that adding a rotor added some r= edundancy, whereas the turbo added more complexity and potential failure mo= des. =A0It seemed to me that pushing 2 rotors harder to get the power of 3 = added stress to the engine; but I think the the rotary can handle it, so th= at=92s not much of an issue. =A0And the 20B fits pretty well on the = Velocity= .=

=A0

Given where you are with the 13B; and the collective experience and knowle= dge now available with turbos in this application; I=92d say =93go for it= =94.

=A0

Al

=A0

=A0

Al G did it with a=A020b in the same kit airframe. However, that ship has s= ailed for me.

Actually, that brings up another issue I have been curious abou= t. Why so much preference to a relatively hard to find and expensive=A020b = over a turbo??????? I noticed it routinely in the achieves. I understand th= e=A020b is more powerful out of the box and the conventional wisdom seems t= o say the=A020b is simpler...tubo's add complexity. Well, the=A020b doe= s have an extra moving part <g>....but, unlike the turbo option the= =A020b does not do much for you in thin air, the turbo does. Also, a=A013b = turbo install would still seem to be lighter than a=A020b N/A install. What= am I missing or do we just really like the cool factor of the=A020b (no di= sagreement there from me).

I once again throw myself at the mercy of the collective wisdom= for edification. While y'all pine away on it all, I will be confusing = myself further doing some more surfing and remind myself of the other quest= ions I meant to ask.

As always, thanks.

All the best,

Chris Barber

Houston, GSOT


--000325557e1e68293e0482004f9b--