|
Dave,
Still trying to get around to fitting a turbo,
possibly next lifetime the way I am going. What turbo did you end
up fitting, and what size cooler? Neil.
I agree with Marc. A proper single turbo will be
more efficient, more reliable, and much easier to install.
Sequential turbos are most helpful to minimize turbo lag in
automotive applications. Stock one or two-piece apex seals are
plenty (even preferred) for modest boost levels (up to 150 hp
per rotor or so).
The rotary will not burn less fuel than an 8 cyl
aircraft engine at the same output. It will burn more, but
not an excessive amount more.
Dave Leonard
That does
not sound to me like a suitable aircraft configuration.
A single turbo would suffice, the controller/wastegate would
dial in the boost needed to maintain SL pressure in the
manifold at any condition, there isn't a reason to 'overboost'
the engine. Too complicated and unnecessary-especially all the
hot turbo piping could get very messy.
Is the engine builder using ceramic rotor tip seals? Good idea
for boosted engines.
MW
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 2:00 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate question...
Was just talking to the engine builder and the answer to one
question also answered another -
The reason that the engine will have two turbos is that they
are set up sequentially - the first one operates as a turbo
normaliser to 500 rpm above cruise rpm. Once the throttle is
opened past that point for takeoff/climbout the second turbo
kicks in to more power.
That also explains the fuel efficiency at cruise - only a
small turbo is operating to provide turbo normalisation. Hope
this makes sense!
On 4/09/2019 11:21 am, Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au
wrote:
> Kind of strange how it worked out, but when we made a
small change to
> the design that gave a tangible benefit we suddenly found
ourselves
> with room for an extra 40 gallons on top of what we
already had - 90
> gallons should be enough for range to be governed by
bladder size
> instead of fuel tank size.
>
> On 4/09/2019 6:08 am, Charlie England ceengland7@gmail.com
wrote:
>> On 9/3/2019 2:31 AM, Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au
wrote:
>>> ...if someone has an about 450hp four rotor +
turbo engine with
>>> effective cooling, and resolves the torsional
vibration and
>>> resonance issues (which will partly be resolved
by having four
>>> rotors anyway), are there any other foreseeable
likely or possible
>>> issues that may need to be overcome to
successfully operate it with
>>> a good 500hp-rated PSRU like a Ballistic or
similar?
>>>
>> Figuring out where to put the fuel, unless you're
talking about a
>> time-to-climb record attempt or Reno racer. Any
usable a/c at that
>> power level may require your own refinery.
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> --
>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Archive and UnSub:
>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>
>
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|