|
|
John,
The Dave in question is David Staten (come on guys, let's include last names, there are a lot of us and a lot of common names :-)).
David Staten is the guy who was helping me a lot at the beginning of my build. As a matter of fact I met him on the day my project was delivered. He has provided a great deal of insight and perspective to me over the years. He readily admitted in the beginning that he was not the type to be able to easily stick with this type of project. Since he actually has a life, he gracefully bowed out (for the most part) years ago. However, he still pops in his head and opinion routinely enough to still gain information.
Dave and I have gained a tradition of respectful disagreement in the spirit of improvement. We are good at providing various perspective...we can both be right without making the other wrong. As I have said in the past, steel sharpens steel.
I do not think Dave was fighting against a turbo, but just trying to answer my question as to why a 20b opposed to a turbo. AS A MATTER OF FACT, Dave is the one who first suggested a turbo for my bird. I was hesitant at first due to my lack of knowledge. Now I embrace the idea. I still like the idea of a turbo so, if I ever do fly <sigh>, I can get higher, should I choose. That to me is an advantage over the 20b, even though I like the idea of a 20b. When I first considered the rotary I did try to locate a 20b, however, my limited knowledge at the time...way back in the early/mid 2000's <g> prevented me from really knowing where to look. So, I do not think Dave is trying to be contrary, just providing information...in a matter of fact, if not delicate manner <g>. I enjoy the solid exchange of information and banter. I want to be challenged in my thinking in order to hone my knowledge. As you John, mentioned in one of your writings...and I agree, the ME of yesterday would be very impressed with the knowledge of the ME of today. It is really impressive how much I have learned. I still may not grasp or embrace or agree with all the information, but I relish the data points. This helps me weigh the information and come to a conclusion in which I can be more comfortable...and maybe even satisfied (naah <g>). Keep it coming guys/gals. Please.
FWIW.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston, GSOT
________________________________________
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of John Slade [jslade@canardaviation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:18 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Considerations....careful, its long
I don't know which Dave this is, but the argument presented seems
heavily biased and emotive. Let me try to add some perspective....
>turbo's develop LOTS of heat...
Yes, they get hot, and yes, you need an inter-cooler, plumbing and a
pop-off valve. The total installed weight with these items is still
about 40# less than a 20B, and the weight is further forward (for a pusher).
>make this chunk of iron glow red hot, to the point its right on the
limit of sagging/melting into failure
Yes, they can glow red. They're built to withstand the heat. A large
percentage of automobiles, a majority of trucks and thousands of
aircraft use turbos every day. The technology is proven over many years
and millions of miles. Every turbo vehicle I've ever owned just "went
faster". The turbo never needed any maintenance and nothing ever melted.
As I've also proved, that doesn't mean they can't fail, especially if
used outside their design environment. The trick is to do it right first
time with the right equipment for the job, and the plumbing and
shielding that's needed to make it reliable.
>It needs LOTS of oil, LOTS of insulation, LOTS of intercooling
Yes, it needs an oil supply (plus a coolant supply), a standard auto
turbo shield and an intercooler. Provide these and all is well.
>If something can "see" the glowing red hot turbo housing or manifold,
expect it to be damaged by radiant heat...
Thats why they all have a stainless steel and fiber-frax shield standard.
>but MUCH LESS complexity, several less genuine failure points, and a
much more forgiving installation.
There's SOME truth in this, but four extra coils and injectors plus the
wiring for them add they're own failure points and complexity.
In truth there are pros and cons to both approaches. There are also good
things to be said about Subaru engines, with or without turbos. All can
be made to work reliably and safely.
Just trying to aim the discussion in a more reasonable direction.....
Regards,
John
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|