X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4179872 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:59:02 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.40; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100326165823.VNHQ3181.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:58:23 -0400 Received: from willsPC ([68.105.86.80]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id xsyQ1d00A1k005Q04syQN3; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:58:24 -0400 X-VR-Score: 0.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=yjuDh3Ma92GrVaJxYD7gfORM7ilP1Knqouyx6SOEBcg= c=1 sm=1 a=XruvlouZCDbGUgEaRUiNZQ==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=RcvDLEJdpORg8UkemQ0A:9 a=Y0nhROkFlKzb4ikQdREA:7 a=fpAkvLesl6VDUxof8zal4nUVF6MA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=ApY7NKySQ4pATlLy:21 a=nWKQe7xjcYMqHdOc:21 a=Hl1Gy0H5AAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=XUiQLGBhJZNIbQHOrW8A:9 a=KR_T_IbWVof-n7ExT3AA:7 a=lLchzsAZvbfSrSbatR2xDOyvt-AA:4 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=3fc00oS1HactnCrd:21 a=FoBjZ3z94RnMJaEC:21 a=XruvlouZCDbGUgEaRUiNZQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: From: "Mike Wills" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:58:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01CACCCA.DFBF8090" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CACCCA.DFBF8090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable George, Your right, my apologies to Bill. It did come across as pretty gruff. If = you've followed previous posts of mine regarding performance I am very = interested in knowing how my airplane stacks up compared with other RVs, = both rotary and Lyc powered. It is hard enough (and very frustrating) = when people post performance numbers at a variety of altitudes, numbers = posted based on IAS or GS without accounting for environmentals, let = alone numbers based on theoretical calculation. How do we respond to = critics of rotary installs without accurate performance numbers? I'm sort of in the same position as Don. I believe based on his previous = numbers posted that our performance is roughly equivalent. I know that = my performance is currently less than optimum. I have too much prop for = my current HP. I am limited by my gear ratio. I believe I am giving up = some HP due to a less than ideal intake manifold. Unlike Don, I am = content with current performance (for the moment). I'm looking forward to hearing about how some of these P-Port engines = work out. I am considering building up a new P-port, with RD-1C, and new = prop and doing a swap sometime down the road. In the past week Paul = posted a synopsis of the original Powersport install in their RV-4 and = Alan Tolle's RV-3. I'd forgotten how cool those setups were - it was = meeting Alan and Everett Hatch that sold me on the rotary in the first = place. Their Superlight engine was a work of art. My RV-4 is the best = performing airplane I've ever owned. Imagine what it could do if it had = another 70HP and lost 150 pounds (the Powersport RV-4 with Superlight = weighed about 860). That should provide Harmon Rocket performance = without having to build another airplane. Mike Wills From: George Lendich=20 Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:25 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20 Mike,=20 Your a hard man, however I do agree with both the Mazdatrix and = Powersport results and would expect their operating at optimum = configuration and 100% VE. The question in my mind will we all achieve this in our less than = perfect installations - probably not. I can't remember exactly but powersport was running two PP sizes, 38mm = or 40mm early version and the later 44mm. I believe Bill Jepson is = awaiting the results of a more recent 44mm dyno run. That 210hp may be = the old 44mm HP numbers - can't remember exactly. Then again it may be = the smaller inlet as they were running 6,000 for take-off RPM. A smaller = PP will give greater inlet speeds reflecting in VE. George ( down under) Sorry, not buying it Bill. If you are going to quote speeds here, = quote speeds, not calculated speeds based on so many variables that the = end result is meaningless. That sounds like something we'd see on the = other list, not here. As far as I know, Don's best reported speed is 174 = IAS (and IAS is not all that meaningful either). Based on performance = that Don has actually reported his performance is roughly equivalent to = mine (and I'm both prop and gearing limited). His performance may have = improved since he reported those numbers. In any case I'd prefer to = stick to facts. Speaking of the other list, Paul has video of a PP Renesis on a dyno = at Mazdatrix cranking out near 250HP @7500RPM. And he had the dyno sheet = to prove it. Powersport claimed 210HP at 2700 prop RPM (their reduction = ratio was around 2.2; roughly 6000 engine RPM). I believe they also had = dyno data to prove it. I'm anxious to hear how Mark Stietle's PP 20B = performs. Mike Wills From: Bill Bradburry=20 Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:25 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20 Mike, Don didn't report speed. I took his pitch and rpm and figured it. = That speed at cruise is what he would get with no slippage or "lift" = from the prop. Most of the folks with the Catto are actually getting = higher speeds than would be calculated which indicates that the prop is = producing "lift", not slippage.=20 =20 But his engine rpm with that big prop are higher than any I have seen. = With the rotary, rpm =3D horsepower. If you aint making the rpm, you = aint making the horsepower. It doesn't seem to matter what you have = done to the engine.ported, PP, turbo, supercharger. If you look at the = dyno charts that are all over the web, you will see that torque is = pretty flat after about 4K, about 150 ft lbs. The horsepower is around = 150 at 6K, maybe 180 at 7K, and 200 at 7.5K. You can get more = horsepower than that, but only if you scream it up to 8K or 8.5K. All = the charts I have seen are within 10 horsepower of each other at all = rpms. The difference in total horsepower is always a higher max rpm. =20 We all talk about wanting to cruise at 5800 and make 200 horsepower.it = aint happening! Not with the rotary. =20 Bill B =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Mike Wills Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:17 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20 Bill, =20 I went back and looked at Don's previous post. Saw reference to climb = performance, RPMs, and temps, but no speed numbers. Has he previously = reported cruise speeds over 200? Last post from him that I saw with any = speed numbers reported 174MPH IAS at 8000. If he's over 200 now, wow = those are good numbers! =20 Mike Wills =20 From: Bill Bradburry=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:15 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20 =20 Those are the best numbers I have seen with anyone with a Renesis so = far. In fact, I have not heard of numbers that good on any 13B. Don is = getting over 200 MPH with a cruise prop and climbing at over 1400 fpm = with it. The only way he is going to do better is either with an = electric CS prop and/or turbo. If he shaves the prop off to say, 74", = he will get a couple hundred more rpm, but will probably lose in total = thrust. Diameter is a big determiner in thrust.=20 =20 I would like more pictures of Dons intake and exhaust! =20 Bill B =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Al Gietzen Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:05 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20 1. When I read your stats in your first paragraph, the first thought = that comes to mind is that there is too much prop. =20 =20 Ditto. =20 Al G ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CACCCA.DFBF8090 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
George,
 
Your right, my apologies to Bill. It did come = across as=20 pretty gruff. If you've followed previous posts of mine regarding = performance I=20 am very interested in knowing how my airplane stacks up compared with = other RVs,=20 both rotary and Lyc powered. It is hard enough (and very frustrating) = when=20 people post performance numbers at a variety of altitudes, numbers = posted based=20 on IAS or GS without accounting for environmentals, let alone numbers = based on=20 theoretical calculation. How do we respond to critics of rotary installs = without=20 accurate performance numbers?
 
I'm sort of in the same position as Don. I = believe based=20 on his previous numbers posted that our performance is roughly = equivalent. I=20 know that my performance is currently less than optimum. I have too much = prop=20 for my current HP. I am limited by my gear ratio. I believe I am giving = up some=20 HP due to a less than ideal intake manifold. Unlike Don, I am content = with=20 current performance (for the moment).
 
I'm looking forward to hearing about how some = of these=20 P-Port engines work out. I am considering building up a new P-port, with = RD-1C,=20 and new prop and doing a swap sometime down the road. In the past week = Paul=20 posted a synopsis of the original Powersport install in their RV-4 and = Alan=20 Tolle's RV-3. I'd forgotten how cool those setups were - it was meeting = Alan and=20 Everett Hatch that sold me on the rotary in the first place. Their = Superlight=20 engine was a work of art. My RV-4 is the best performing airplane I've = ever=20 owned. Imagine what it could do if it had another 70HP and lost 150 = pounds (the=20 Powersport RV-4 with Superlight weighed about 860). That should provide = Harmon=20 Rocket performance without having to build another = airplane.
 
Mike Wills

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:25 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

Mike,
Your a hard man, however I do agree = with both=20 the Mazdatrix and Powersport results and would expect their operating at = optimum=20 configuration and 100% VE.
 
The question in my mind will we all = achieve this in=20 our less than perfect installations - probably not.
 
I can't remember exactly but powersport = was running=20 two PP sizes, 38mm or 40mm early version and the later 44mm. I = believe Bill=20 Jepson is awaiting the results of a more recent = 44mm dyno run. That 210hp may be the old 44mm HP = numbers - can't=20 remember exactly. Then again it may be the smaller inlet as they were = running=20 6,000 for take-off RPM. A smaller PP will give greater inlet speeds = reflecting=20 in VE.
George ( down under)
Sorry, not buying it Bill. If you are going = to quote=20 speeds here, quote speeds, not calculated speeds based on so many = variables=20 that the end result is meaningless. That sounds like something we'd = see on the=20 other list, not here. As far as I know, Don's best reported speed is = 174 IAS=20 (and IAS is not all that meaningful either). Based on performance = that=20 Don has actually reported his performance is roughly equivalent = to mine=20 (and I'm both prop and gearing limited). His performance may have = improved since he reported those numbers. In any case I'd prefer = to stick=20 to facts.
 
Speaking of the other list, Paul has = video of a=20 PP Renesis on a dyno  at Mazdatrix cranking out near 250HP = @7500RPM. And=20 he had the dyno sheet to prove it. Powersport claimed 210HP at 2700 = prop RPM=20 (their reduction ratio was around 2.2; roughly 6000 engine RPM). = I=20 believe they also had dyno data to prove it. I'm anxious to hear how = Mark=20 Stietle's PP 20B performs.
 
Mike Wills

From: Bill Bradburry
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:25 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

Mike,

Don didn=92t report speed.  I took his = pitch and=20 rpm and figured it.  That speed at cruise is what he would get = with no=20 slippage or =93lift=94 from the prop.  Most of the folks with the = Catto are=20 actually getting higher speeds than would be calculated which = indicates that=20 the prop is producing =93lift=94, not = slippage. 

 

But his engine rpm with that big prop are = higher than=20 any I have seen.  With the rotary, rpm =3D horsepower.  If = you aint=20 making the rpm, you aint making the horsepower.  It doesn=92t = seem to=20 matter what you have done to the engine=85ported, PP, turbo, = supercharger. =20 If you look at the dyno charts that are all over the web, you will see = that=20 torque is pretty flat after about 4K, about 150 ft lbs.  The = horsepower=20 is around 150 at 6K, maybe 180 at 7K, and 200 at 7.5K.  You can = get more=20 horsepower than that, but only if you scream it up to 8K  or = 8.5K. =20 All the charts I have seen are within 10 horsepower of each other at = all=20 rpms.  The difference in total horsepower is always a higher max=20 rpm.

 

We all talk about wanting to cruise at 5800 = and make=20 200 horsepower=85it aint happening!  Not with the=20 rotary.

 

Bill B

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of Mike Wills
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 = 1:17=20 AM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo = Planning=20

Bill,

 

I went back and looked = at Don's=20 previous post. Saw reference to climb performance, RPMs, and temps, = but no=20 speed numbers. Has he previously reported cruise speeds over 200? Last = post=20 from him that I saw with any speed numbers reported 174MPH IAS at=20 8000. If he's over 200 now, wow those are good=20 numbers!

 

Mike=20 Wills

 

From: Bill=20 Bradburry

Sent:=20 Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:15 PM

To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning =

 

Those are the best numbers I have seen with = anyone=20 with a Renesis so far.  In fact, I have not heard of numbers that = good on=20 any 13B.  Don is getting over 200 MPH with a cruise prop and = climbing at=20 over 1400 fpm with it.  The only way he is going to do better is = either=20 with an electric CS prop and/or turbo.  If he shaves the prop off = to say,=20 74=94, he will get a couple hundred more rpm, but will probably lose = in total=20 thrust.  Diameter is a big determiner in=20 thrust. 

 

I would like more pictures of Dons intake = and=20 exhaust!

 

Bill B

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of Al Gietzen
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 = 3:05=20 AM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo = Planning=20

1. When I read your stats in your first = paragraph, the=20 first thought that

comes to mind is that there is too much = prop. =20

 

Ditto.

 

Al=20 G

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CACCCA.DFBF8090--