X-Junk-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=G+5i7Os5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=4O0FlCpX9KYdhYCvc8VUtg==:117 a=xlPPg8UuphYULLwufyM06Q==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=J70Eh1EUuV4A:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=N8B9JuSIAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=YT3Yr15HAAAA:8 a=_6GpL_ENAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=cDfLGimouVmtHxgPpAcA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=gvSQh4r-fQ0A:10 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=6ZAa0Bt_y_7PaqwQFp8A:9 a=dr49kxkvnaTaE4U6:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=n01S8XkSGdFQBE5HZolH:22 a=Urk15JJjZg1Xo0ryW_k8:22 a=GyA-uvUxXSCciAkwuKQO:22 a=wTiroRwonzHjqvaCcHYi:22 a=grOzbf7U_OpcSX4AJOnl:22 a=4dqwQCo7Po2mVW515mGf:22 From: "Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au" Received: from nsstlmta37p.bpe.bigpond.com ([203.38.21.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2.14) with ESMTPS id 12932455 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 22:22:39 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.38.21.37; envelope-from=kbedford@alphalink.com.au Received: from smtp.telstra.com ([10.10.24.4]) by nsstlfep37p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au with ESMTP id <20190907022218.RLXS1159.nsstlfep37p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au@smtp.telstra.com> for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:22:18 +1000 X-RG-Spam: Unknown X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudektddgheejucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuuffpveftpgfvgffnuffvtfetpdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucegtddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghnthcuuegvughfohhrugcuoehksggvughfohhrugesrghlphhhrghlihhnkhdrtghomhdrrghuqeenucffohhmrghinheprhhothgrrhihrhhoshhtvghrrdhnvghtnecukfhppedurddufeeirdduieejrdduhedunecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedrgedvrdduiedtngdpihhnvghtpedurddufeeirdduieejrdduhedupdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepoehksggvughfohhrugesrghlphhhrghlihhnkhdrtghomhdrrghuqecuuefqffgjpeekuefkvffokffogfdprhgtphhtthhopeeofhhlhihrohhtrghrhieslhgrnhgtrghirhhonhhlihhnvgdrnhgvtheqnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean X-RG-VS-CLASS: clean X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using ID kent.bedford@bigpond.com Received: from [192.168.42.160] (1.136.167.151) by smtp.telstra.com (5.8.335) (authenticated as kent.bedford@bigpond.com) id 5D36929211F82D1E for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:22:18 +1000 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate question... To: Rotary motors in aircraft References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:22:26 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1F5048EE542B2293C8CD378F" Content-Language: en-AU This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1F5048EE542B2293C8CD378F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A question from me - considering we will be using a 4 rotor engine which will produce around 350hp without a turbo at sea level - is a turbo really needed for an aircraft that is MTOW 2250 lbs Flying to FL250 or would a 4 rotor/350hp engine be sufficient even with the loss of power of a normally aspirated engine at altitude? (which I vaguely recall is less of a power drop for a rotary engine than a piston engine). On 6/09/2019 1:00 am, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Neil, > > I started with the stock turbo knowing it wasnt quite rite for the > job, but hey, its came free with my engine.  It performed pretty well > but only lasted about 100 hrs.  Since then I have been with various > iterataions of the TO4 in a modified stock turbine housing.  Those > have performed very well but are not industructable.  Prolonged > periods at Peak EGT will melt them too.  I have over 600 hrs on my > curent turbo becuase I keep it either rich or lean of peak and the TOT > less than 890C. > > I recall the exact size of my radiator, 20"x22"x3"  rings a bell.  It > is all detailed in the archives and on my website. (which is in dire > need of an update). > > Dave Leonard > > www.rotaryroster.net > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, 3:21 PM Neil Unger 12348ung@gmail.com > > wrote: > > 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 >> > > 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 > > >> 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 >> --------------1F5048EE542B2293C8CD378F Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
A question from me - considering we will be using a 4 rotor engine which will produce around 350hp without a turbo at sea level - is a turbo really needed for an aircraft that is

MTOW 2250 lbs
Flying to FL250

or would a 4 rotor/350hp engine be sufficient even with the loss of power of a normally aspirated engine at altitude? (which I vaguely recall is less of a power drop for a rotary engine than a piston engine).



On 6/09/2019 1:00 am, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Neil,

I started with the stock turbo knowing it wasnt quite rite for the job, but hey, its came free with my engine.  It performed pretty well but only lasted about 100 hrs.  Since then I have been with various iterataions of the TO4 in a modified stock turbine housing.  Those have performed very well but are not industructable.  Prolonged periods at Peak EGT will melt them too.  I have over 600 hrs on my curent turbo becuase I keep it either rich or lean of peak and the TOT less than 890C.

I recall the exact size of my radiator, 20"x22"x3"  rings a bell.  It is all detailed in the archives and on my website. (which is in dire need of an update).

Dave Leonard

www.rotaryroster.net

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, 3:21 PM Neil Unger 12348ung@gmail.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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


--------------1F5048EE542B2293C8CD378F--