X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-qy0-f204.google.com ([209.85.221.204] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4179931 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:58:05 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.221.204; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by qyk42 with SMTP id 42so833768qyk.7 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:received:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=K40+ou3zEFY+D2o1WcSrz8EvB9ap57Tv4FrI6xXcJOs=; b=Fqj5dGQyWCRuz/AN61iME+6xV9TBjkzCXrOW29S/qcHgnPK0dJM1nY7Zzj7nk7XM8y BGHlrbZT2pT2ReexafCfUTHVaFxNUTM/BA3CdE0Ac085C0ZhWFfLX5iWHrVW/jep9bG4 ThPbFPy9EXTw1TOy1rO+qZKPjKXk1gqakanMY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=iEMr2OUyNKc+lkUtYRyCX9iR8RXiOKf/NQGP93Upg5lXxscECrCyNeck1pILEh/cIj UhbhmIUJY0wD+lff6nD0YwhmgsZb6ZD2dku36QRMcbYzO5k/zJ3nCxNIN0sMVlIyERGK cLUW6UKpr2b96GLYKdfzF44dTAx86gy0oFdxY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.60.211 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:57:28 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9bfc4c60bd447c6f Received: by 10.224.45.16 with SMTP id c16mr445760qaf.144.1269626248670; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1b4b137c1003261057u1ef8fd92oa616204f82a45150@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re:P-Port performance From: Tracy Crook To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f9721448cae8d0482b7e515 --00c09f9721448cae8d0482b7e515 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable *"I'm looking forward to hearing about how some of these P-Port engines wor= k out.*" This is the only current flying P-Port that I know of. Same engine that Paul L. talks about that he Dyno tested at Mazdatrix. Here are a few clips from Mark Supinski's Mustang II w/ P-port 13B first flight tests. Hard to draw solid conclusions from first flight especially at that altitude but the max rpm with that small prop do not look all that good. There may be a lot more potential when things are worked out. Tracy K00V - Meadow Lakes Airport, Peyton CO OAT: 50F Winds: 5kt out of north Field Elevation: 6875 Density Altitude: 7680 Mazda 13B rotary, NA with Peripheral Porting 2.85:1 redrive, standard prop rotation Takeoff roll was 1500 feet max; Water temps throughout the climb were a chilly 178F max. Oil temps were not as kind, 197F on takeoff, 217F when departing the pattern, and 241F at 10,000 feet. Oil temps quickly dropped back to 215F on level out, Maximum rpm was around 7000 (~2450 prop). Given that our prop is only a 68x68, we would expect to be able to get to the electronics limit of 8000 On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Mike Wills wrote: > 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) whe= n > people post performance numbers at a variety of altitudes, numbers posted > based on IAS or GS without accounting for environmentals, let alone numbe= rs > 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 wor= k > 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 synop= sis > 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 Ha= tch > that sold me on the rotary in the first place. Their Superlight engine wa= s 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 > *Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:25 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning > > Mike, > Your a hard man, however I do agree with both the Mazdatrix and Powerspor= t > 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 res= ult > is meaningless. That sounds like something we'd see on the other list, no= t > 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 rati= o > was around 2.2; roughly 6000 engine RPM). I believe they also had dyno da= ta > to prove it. I'm anxious to hear how Mark 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 rpm and figured it. Tha= t > speed at cruise is what he would get with no slippage or =93lift=94 from = the > prop. Most of the folks with the Catto are actually getting higher speed= s > than would be calculated which indicates that the prop is producing =93li= ft=94, > not slippage. > > > > 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 ain= t > making the horsepower. It doesn=92t seem to matter what you have done to= the > engine=85ported, 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 7= K, > 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. > > > > We all talk about wanting to cruise at 5800 and make 200 horsepower=85it = aint > happening! Not with the rotary. > > > > Bill B > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *O= n > Behalf Of *Mike Wills > *Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:17 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning > > Bill, > > > > 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 thos= e > are good numbers! > > > > Mike Wills > > > > *From:* Bill Bradburry > > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:15 PM > > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning > > > > 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 gettin= g > over 200 MPH with a cruise prop and climbing at over 1400 fpm with it. T= he > 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=94, he will get a couple hun= dred > more rpm, but will probably lose in total thrust. Diameter is a big > determiner in thrust. > > > > I would like more pictures of Dons intake and exhaust! > > > > Bill B > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *O= n > Behalf Of *Al Gietzen > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:05 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning > > 1. When I read your stats in your first paragraph, the first thought that > > comes to mind is that there is too much prop. > > > > Ditto. > > > > Al G > > --00c09f9721448cae8d0482b7e515 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "I'm looking forward to hearing about ho= w some of=20 these=20 P-Port engines work out."

This is the only current flying P= -Port that I know of. =A0 Same engine that Paul L. talks about that he Dyno= tested at Mazdatrix.=A0 Here are a few clips from Mark Supinski's Must= ang II w/ P-port 13B first flight tests.=A0=A0 Hard to draw solid conclusio= ns from first flight especially at that altitude=A0 but the max rpm with th= at small prop do not look all that good.=A0 There may be a lot more potenti= al when things are=A0 worked out.

Tracy


K00V - Meadow Lakes Airport, Peyton CO
OAT: =A0 50F
Winds: 5kt out of north
Field Elevation: 6875
Density Altitude: 7680
Mazda 13B rotary, NA with Peripheral Porting
2.85:1 redrive, standard prop rotation

=A0Takeoff
roll was 1500 feet max;

Water temps throughout the climb were a chil= ly 178F max.
=A0Oil temps were not as kind, 197F on takeoff, 217F when departing the
pattern, and 241F at 10,000 feet. =A0Oil temps quickly dropped back to
215F on level out,
=A0
=A0Maximum rpm w= as around
7000 (~2450 prop). =A0Given that our prop is only a 68x68, we would
expect to be able to get to the electronics limit of 8000

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Mike Wills <rv-4mike@cox.net> wrote:
George,
=A0
Your right, my apologies to Bill. It did come a= cross as=20 pretty gruff. If you've followed previous posts of mine regarding perfo= rmance 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 b= ased=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 wi= thout=20 accurate performance numbers?
=A0
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 pr= op=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).
=A0
I'm looking forward to hearing about how so= me 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 mee= ting Alan and=20 Everett Hatch that sold me on the rotary in the first place. Their Superlig= ht=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 Har= mon=20 Rocket performance without having to build another airplane.
=A0
Mike Wills

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:25 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <= /div>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

Mike,
Your a hard man, however I do agree wi= th=A0both=20 the Mazdatrix and Powersport results and would expect their operating at op= timum=20 configuration and 100% VE.
=A0
The question in my mind will we all ac= hieve this in=20 our less than perfect installations - probably not.
=A0
I can't remember exactly but power= sport was running=20 two PP sizes, 38mm or 40mm early version=A0and the later 44mm. I believe Bi= ll=20 Jepson is awaiting=A0the results of a=A0more recent 44mm=A0dyno 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 runni= ng=20 6,000 for take-off RPM. A smaller PP will give greater inlet speeds reflect= ing=20 in VE.
George ( down under)
Sorry, not buying it Bill. If you are going t= o quote=20 speeds here, quote speeds, not calculated speeds based on so many variabl= es=20 that the end result is meaningless. That sounds like something we'd s= ee on the=20 other list, not here. As far as I know, Don's best reported speed is = 174 IAS=20 (and=A0IAS is not all that meaningful either). Based on performance that= =20 Don has actually reported=A0his performance is roughly equivalent to mine= =20 (and I'm both prop and gearing limited). His performance may=A0have= =20 improved since he reported those numbers. In any case=A0I'd prefer to= stick=20 to facts.
=A0
Speaking of the other list, Paul=A0has video = of a=20 PP Renesis on a dyno=A0 at Mazdatrix cranking out near 250HP @7500RPM. An= d=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=A0RPM). I=20 believe they also had dyno data to prove it. I'm anxious to hear how = Mark=20 Stietle's PP 20B performs.
=A0
Mike Wills

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:25 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

Mike,

Don didn=92t report speed.=A0 I took his pitch and= =20 rpm and figured it.=A0 That speed at cruise is what he would get with no= =20 slippage or =93lift=94 from the prop.=A0 Most of the folks with the Catto= are=20 actually getting higher speeds than would be calculated which indicates t= hat=20 the prop is producing =93lift=94, not slippage.=A0

=A0

But his engine rpm with that big prop are higher t= han=20 any I have seen.=A0 With the rotary, rpm =3D horsepower.=A0 If you aint= =20 making the rpm, you aint making the horsepower.=A0 It doesn=92t seem to= =20 matter what you have done to the engine=85ported, PP, turbo, supercharger= .=A0=20 If you look at the dyno charts that are all over the web, you will see th= at=20 torque is pretty flat after about 4K, about 150 ft lbs.=A0 The horsepower= =20 is around 150 at 6K, maybe 180 at 7K, and 200 at 7.5K.=A0 You can get mor= e=20 horsepower than that, but only if you scream it up to 8K=A0 or 8.5K.=A0= =20 All the charts I have seen are within 10 horsepower of each other at all= =20 rpms.=A0 The difference in total horsepower is always a higher max=20 rpm.

=A0

We all talk about wanting to cruise at 5800 and ma= ke=20 200 horsepower=85it aint happening!=A0 Not with the=20 rotary.

=A0

Bill B

=A0

<= font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman">

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft=20 [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: [F= lyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20

Bill,

=A0

I went back and looked at Don's= =20 previous post. Saw reference to climb performance, RPMs, and temps, but n= o=20 speed numbers. Has he previously reported cruise speeds over 200? Last po= st=20 from him that I saw with any speed numbers reported 174MPH IAS at=20 8000.=A0If he's over 200 now, wow those are good=20 numbers!

=A0

Mike=20 Wills

=A0

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

To:Rotary motors in aircraft=20

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

=A0

Those are the best numbers I have seen with anyone= =20 with a Renesis so far.=A0 In fact, I have not heard of numbers that good = on=20 any 13B.=A0 Don is getting over 200 MPH with a cruise prop and climbing a= t=20 over 1400 fpm with it.=A0 The only way he is going to do better is either= =20 with an electric CS prop and/or turbo.=A0 If he shaves the prop off to sa= y,=20 74=94, he will get a couple hundred more rpm, but will probably lose in t= otal=20 thrust.=A0 Diameter is a big determiner in=20 thrust.=A0

=A0

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

=A0

Bill B

=A0

<= font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman">

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft=20 [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: [F= lyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20

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

come= s to mind is that there is too much prop.=A0=20

=A0<= /span>

Ditto.

=A0<= /span>

Al=20 G


--00c09f9721448cae8d0482b7e515--