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.

On 9/5/2019 6:36 AM, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com wrote:

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

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, 1:24 PM Marc Wiese cardmarc@charter.net <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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