X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm22.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.44.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with SMTP id 5040759 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:47:15 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.44.149; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: from [98.139.44.97] by nm22.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jul 2011 23:46:39 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.69] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jul 2011 23:46:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1006.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jul 2011 23:46:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 81482.53019.bm@omp1006.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 84594 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Jul 2011 23:46:39 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1309650398; bh=aYxOXtymnKbVTBrFBewVbS+b4PI5gJjcOVtdXBG8W0Y=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JhOWJjIoSftqSromFQxeZvwyvZaFzyyWdDE/N5Un5SvmPIo+3bl7mpS8o1pe5LMzIJzztL+3WiUVtLMl9vSQiZ6ftoAn48YUII6F1NlDBWkmXAWMcQpOcmYvNaauOr9e8J96cxEjshvhIQNlrOqic3AjED4WngTkkYg1Nh0a7SA= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=att.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=0pMyemA6l5UB7sHTHSX/ln0GUGZrQMzkUzDwLRGvdHVJoIvaLbdcPaAjUcO16YUJJmzQZbLmnT8nrNI9Nq2wrWH4/tnKUg2LrAPtfJ1JO2lYnAsiZ5kAwXdEUi+nJvCb3RmWWl/j4xrWrgnuZCp5kH9JA4arWYkkx+Vlx0tv8Wo=; X-YMail-OSG: b8CN6jsVM1m5Cigojqjes.KefOSEDM2dAcNpmVGvIO.dnSl fS.GakvLlth1kGVtrEIoH31pTs3agrDs9UnlAWl1aTdcamkhIZFUaM1LzDY2 NjftAXGYc2cGNF.c_C8ccPaYJxBZbiWUgATSesJAeXbJRLpNnIxtU8mqavEL jjUGgH3pi7GQF.0YdH6YqK8caX2LYMosIKsIOAMogEAxVrgYYEKnm1dXJr3y 5O5_YCJa3FrGRODNBjPkYRq4k3ozEAyyRSIcOj_FaZwB6y.zmn7mSueIlBjP Tn.lNdFymjb_6WKU.NKL4UMSIUmlJWWjOSUltnJB6mvqzQbe4NowCe0ji7TX Yvq2Anw9XK9_aB4tn Received: from [208.114.39.18] by web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 16:46:38 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: Message-ID: <1309650398.83632.YahooMailNeo@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 16:46:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Troyer Reply-To: Kelly Troyer Subject: Re: 20B Installation To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1988010113-1309650398=:83632" --0-1988010113-1309650398=:83632 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thomas,=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Interested if you are doing your own P port housi= ngs (ala Mark Steitle)..........=0A=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Even= tually)=0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engine=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTRAL"_Backplate/O= il Manifold=0A"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo=0A=0AFrom: Thomas Mann =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft = =0ASent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 4:04 PM=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B Inst= allation=0A=0A=0ANo argument there William. =0A=0AI have my 20B here ready = for rebuild along with the bed mount & PSRU so I'm pretty committed at this= point.=0A=0AThis is just personal preference. I'm not saying it's right fo= r everybody.=0A=0AYour points supporting a 13B Turbo are some that I consid= ered. One of the downsides of going with the three rotor is the extra rotor= so extra seals, high compression rotor, P-Ported housing.=A0=0A=0AJust so = long as it runs reliably with extra power to get me off the runway.=0A=0AT = Mann=0A=0A=0AOn Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:35 PM, William Wilson wrote:=0A=0AIt also depends on your goal.=A0 If you want to fly mo= st economically or at high altitudes, the 13B turbo setup is probably bette= r.=A0 If you just want to go fast, the 20B will produce as much power as a = typical 13B turbo.=A0 The 13B is cheaper and easier to find parts for (for = those relatively few parts which aren't common to both).=A0 Weight is proba= bly similar. =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Thomas Mann wrote:=0A>=0A>No turbo for me. =0A>>=0A>>=0A>>I was = looking at the turbo two rotor and decided (based on weight and simplicity)= to go with the three rotor N/A instead.=A0=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>I felt that to ad= d the complexity of the turbo took away more than it gave. What draws me to= the rotary in the first place is the simplicity. If I add the turbo, I've = lost this level of simplicity.=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>T Mann=0A>>=0A>>On Sat, Jul 2,= 2011 at 3:17 PM, Kelly Troyer wrote:=0A>>=0A>>Thomas,=0A>= >>=A0=A0=A0=A0 Turbo ??......................=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A> --0-1988010113-1309650398=:83632 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thomas,
   &n= bsp;  Interested if you are doing your own P port housings (ala Mark S= teitle)..........
 
Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)
"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil = Manifold
"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

From:= Thomas Mann <thomasmann51@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@= lancaironline.net>
Sent:<= /B> Saturday, July 2, 2011 4:04 PM
= Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B Installation

No argument there William.

I have my 20B here ready for rebuild along with the bed mount & PS= RU so I'm pretty committed at this point.

This is just personal preference. I'm not saying it's right for everyb= ody.

Your points supporting a 13B Turbo are some that I considered. One of = the downsides of going with the three rotor is the extra rotor so extra sea= ls, high compression rotor, P-Ported housing. 

Just so long as it runs reliably with extra power to get me off the ru= nway.

T Mann

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Willi= am Wilson <fluffy= sheap@gmail.com> wrote:
It also depends on yo= ur goal.  If you want to fly most economically or at high altitudes, t= he 13B turbo setup is probably better.  If you just want to go fast, t= he 20B will produce as much power as a typical 13B turbo.  The 13B is = cheaper and easier to find parts for (for those relatively few parts which = aren't common to both).  Weight is probably similar.


On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Thoma= s Mann <thomasma= nn51@gmail.com> wrote:
No turbo for me.

I was looking at the turbo two rotor and decided (based on weight and = simplicity) to go with the three rotor N/A instead. 

I felt that to add the complexity of the turbo took away more than it = gave. What draws me to the rotary in the first place is the simplicity. If = I add the turbo, I've lost this level of simplicity.

T Mann

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Kelly Troyer <keltro@att.net> wrote:
Thomas,
     Turbo ??......................


=



--0-1988010113-1309650398=:83632--