X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4180414 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:42:31 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.44; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100327024155.MANM23007.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:41:55 -0400 Received: from willsPC ([68.105.86.80]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id y2hu1d00L1k005Q042huMl; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:41:55 -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=wPiSlOz2POrsOZnl5cAA:9 a=5UqYKvNwwMhMxdJnigwA:7 a=h27G4PrRGJ_I_zcuK_uxn0QZ4PAA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=RUhdkBa8H8_xxrU_:21 a=dsTGcrkttkli938E:21 a=Hl1Gy0H5AAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=HQww3ZhLv46Y6t7WQqAA:9 a=pSWemFwX-0U-_PWvSCoA:7 a=fTNx2D1udp5daPrxEwu5GXAgEFAA:4 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=8a6xf8Rfp2PrJQWn:21 a=ybOiQBZG6QCS2q79:21 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 19:41:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006B_01CACD1C.63467260" 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_006B_01CACD1C.63467260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable George, Hoping that they produce something that not only works, but is within = financial reach. The history to date of FWF packages (including the last = iteration of Powersport) include lots of cases of pricing that is simply = out of reach. I like the concept of the rotary or wouldn't be flying = one, but given the choice between being a beta tester for somebody's = brand new FWF auto conversion versus buying a brand new Lyc from Vans = for the same or less money, I'd choose the Lyc. Mike Wills From: George Lendich=20 Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:26 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning=20 Mike, I understand your frustration, nothing is set in cement as every = installation is different. I have been in discussions with Bill Jepson for many years now (off = list) and now that Bill is in collaboration with Steve and their = refining the old Powersport designs, I sense an era of rapid = improvements for the rotary. Mind you Powersport spent a lot of time and = money on their developments - which showed in their performance. These = are optimum configurations and numbers IMHO. The beauty of that light engine in size weight and performance is = outstanding IMO. I do believe that the partnership of Steve and Bill is outstanding and = should result in an offer a FWF package at some time in the near future = for those who don't want to struggle from scratch. Naturally the = accessories might be well beyond what the home builder is capable of = developing/ manufacturing however I believe these parts will also be = available. I know Bill is very keen on direct injection, but that could = be down the track. All in all the future is looking bright. If we can pick up ready made = and proven accessories or FWF package at a reasonable price, life would = be sweet. Mind you this is just conjecture on my part, at this point in = time, a lot must be accomplished before things are set in cement. = However I'm feeling better all the time, I wish I had more inside = information but Bill is keeping things very close to his chest. George ( down under) 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_006B_01CACD1C.63467260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
George,
 
Hoping that they produce something that not = only works,=20 but is within financial reach. The history to date of FWF packages = (including=20 the last iteration of Powersport) include lots of cases of pricing that = is=20 simply out of reach. I like the concept of the rotary or wouldn=92t be = flying one,=20 but given the choice between being a beta tester for somebody's brand = new FWF=20 auto conversion versus buying a brand new Lyc from Vans for the same or = less=20 money, I'd choose the Lyc.
 
Mike Wills

Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:26 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

 Mike,
 I understand your frustration, = nothing is set=20 in cement as every installation is different.
I have been in discussions with Bill = Jepson for=20 many years now (off list) and now that Bill is in collaboration with = Steve and=20 their refining the old Powersport designs, I sense an era of rapid = improvements=20 for the rotary. Mind you Powersport spent a lot of time and money on = their=20 developments - which showed in their performance. These are optimum = configurations and numbers IMHO.
 
The beauty of that light engine in size = weight and=20 performance is outstanding IMO.
 
I do believe that the partnership of = Steve and Bill=20 is outstanding and should result in an offer a FWF package at = some=20 time in the near future for those who don't want to struggle from=20 scratch. Naturally the accessories might be well beyond what the = home=20 builder is capable of developing/ manufacturing however I believe = these=20 parts will also be available. I know Bill is very keen on direct = injection, but=20 that could be down the track.
 
All in all the future is looking = bright. If we can=20 pick up ready made and proven accessories or FWF package at a reasonable = price,=20 life would be sweet. Mind you this is just conjecture on my part, = at this=20 point in time, a lot must be accomplished before things are set in = cement.=20 However I'm feeling better all the time, I wish I had more inside = information=20 but Bill is keeping things very close to his chest.
George ( down under)

George,
 
Your right, my apologies to Bill. It did = come across=20 as pretty gruff. If you've followed previous posts of mine regarding=20 performance I am very interested in knowing how my airplane stacks up = compared=20 with other RVs, both rotary and Lyc powered. It is hard enough (and = very=20 frustrating) when people post performance numbers at a variety of = altitudes,=20 numbers posted based on IAS or GS without accounting for = environmentals, let=20 alone numbers based on theoretical calculation. How do we respond to = critics=20 of rotary installs without accurate performance numbers?
 
I'm sort of in the same position as Don. I = believe=20 based on his previous numbers posted that our performance is roughly=20 equivalent. I know that my performance is currently less than optimum. = I have=20 too much prop for my current HP. I am limited by my gear ratio. I = believe I am=20 giving up some HP due to a less than ideal intake manifold. Unlike = Don, I am=20 content with 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=20 RD-1C, and new prop and doing a swap sometime down the road. In the = past week=20 Paul posted a synopsis of the original Powersport install in their = RV-4 and=20 Alan Tolle's RV-3. I'd forgotten how cool those setups were - it was = meeting=20 Alan and Everett Hatch that sold me on the rotary in the first place. = Their=20 Superlight engine was a work of art. My RV-4 is the best performing = airplane=20 I've ever owned. Imagine what it could do if it had another 70HP and = lost 150=20 pounds (the Powersport RV-4 with Superlight weighed about 860). That = should=20 provide Harmon Rocket performance without having to build another=20 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=20 with both the Mazdatrix and Powersport results and would expect = their=20 operating at optimum configuration and 100% VE.
 
The question in my mind will we all = achieve this=20 in our less than perfect installations - probably not.
 
I can't remember exactly but = powersport was=20 running two PP sizes, 38mm or 40mm early version and the later = 44mm. I=20 believe Bill Jepson is awaiting the results of a more recent = 44mm dyno run. That 210hp may = be the old=20 44mm HP numbers - can't remember exactly. Then again it may be the = smaller=20 inlet as they were running 6,000 for take-off RPM. A smaller PP will = give=20 greater inlet speeds reflecting 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=20 the other list, not here. As far as I know, Don's best reported = speed is 174=20 IAS (and IAS is not all that meaningful either). Based on = performance=20 that Don has actually reported his performance is roughly = equivalent to=20 mine (and I'm both prop and gearing limited). His performance = may have=20 improved since he reported those numbers. In any case I'd = prefer to=20 stick 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.=20 And he had the dyno sheet to prove it. Powersport claimed 210HP at = 2700 prop=20 RPM (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=20
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=20 slippage. 

 

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

Bill,

 

I went back and = looked at=20 Don's previous post. Saw reference to climb performance, RPMs, and = temps,=20 but no speed numbers. Has he previously reported cruise speeds over = 200?=20 Last post 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=20

 

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=20 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=20 better is either with an electric CS prop and/or turbo.  If he = shaves=20 the prop off to say, 74=94, he will get a couple hundred more rpm, = but will=20 probably lose in total thrust.  Diameter is a big determiner in = thrust. 

 

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

 

Bill B

 

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: [FlyRotary] Re: = Turbo Planning=20

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

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

 

Ditto.

 

Al=20 = G

------=_NextPart_000_006B_01CACD1C.63467260--