Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.100] (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 3112896 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:33:31 -0500 Received: from edward (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i2MGWwSn003793 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:32:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000e01c4102b$5634b730$2402a8c0@edward> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C drivetesting Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:32:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C41001.6D2576C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C41001.6D2576C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sounds like all around great news on the new gearbox and prop. Keep the = reports coming. =20 If such a "retrofit" of a B shell to C internals is possible and = economical then that could move the trend toward the 2.85 even quicker. = Shucks, if you used NA rotor housings it sounds like you wouldn't even = need a muffler {:>).=20 I am somewhat surprised that you can get the same airspeed with only = about a 5% difference in rpm - sounds like my initial assumption that a = higher rpm (and fuel burn)would be required to get the same airspeed is = not valid. Perhaps the much greater pitch gets more work done per = revolution. I wonder if possibly the fact that at higher rpm you not = only get the benefit of more power strokes per second, but at the higher = rpm the airflow in your manifold (assuming you are using the same dia = tubes as before) is at a higher velocity and therefore great inertia = for stuffing even more air/fuel mixture into the combustion chamber when = the port opens. =20 In any case, sounds like all pluses for us guys with nose gears {:>) Ed Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tracy Crook=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:02 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C = drivetesting The -C drive has very different internals but I will look at the = feasibility of reworking the -B housing to receive the -C guts. I think = it can be done. Yes, the -C bolts right up to the same adapter plate. = I think you are right about the 2.85 becoming the preferred ratio, but = only if you can handle the longer prop. You nose draggers have the = advantage here. The more I fly it the better I like this setup. The higher rpm was = very disconcerting at first but I acclimated rapidly. And now that I = have digested the fact that the actual rpm difference at normally used = throttle settings is only about 5%, I absolutely love it. Another good = sign is that the manifold pressure is now more than 5% lower at any = given airspeed that I've tested so far. Even if the wear rate is up 5% = or so it would be a non issue. =20 One more plus for the 2.85 is something I hesitate to mention. It's = kind of like the "engine making oil so I have to drain some out" thing, = kind of unbelievable. It makes sense that there would be less prop = noise but I'm also getting less engine noise. =20 I was getting tired of the increased noise with the Hushpower II = muffler and was almost ready to put the Spintech back on even though it = costs at least 5 - 6 mph in drag. But with the -C drive things have = quieted down substantially. I think part of the credit for this goes to = the difference in RPM moving the vibrations away from the resonance = point of the sheet metal panels in my RV-4 but even observers on the = ground have mentioned that the engine sounds quieter.=20 I better shut-up now, this is starting to sound too good to be true. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Anderson Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 8:30 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C = drivetesting Sounds great thus far, Tracy Imagine having so much thrust that you can't hold the aircraft = still for maximum static, must be tough {:>). If you initial = observations hold regarding fuel consumption and performance, then I = predict the 285 will soon become the standard. If the fuel = burn/performance is a wash then only engine wear from higher rpm might = be a factor, but since the rotary seems to only have no/ minimum wear in = any case, that probably will not be a significant factor. So how much are you given for 2.17:1 trade ins? Seriously, will = the B model mounting plate accommodate the C model gear box housing = (looks like you mount it the same way). I presume it would not be so = simple as swapping out the internals as I am certain the internal = mounting/housing is different in the two. Third, in case you consider = getting rid of that old performance prop, put me on top of your list. Ed ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C41001.6D2576C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sounds like all around great news on the new = gearbox and=20 prop.  Keep the reports coming. 
 
If such a "retrofit" of a B shell to C internals = is=20 possible and economical then that could move the trend toward the 2.85 = even=20 quicker. 
 
Shucks, if you used NA rotor housings it sounds = like you=20 wouldn't even need a muffler {:>). 
 
I am somewhat surprised that you can get the = same airspeed=20 with only about a 5% difference in rpm - sounds like my = initial assumption=20 that  a higher rpm (and fuel burn)would be required to get the same = airspeed is not valid. Perhaps the much greater pitch gets more = work done=20 per revolution.   I wonder if possibly the fact that at higher = rpm you=20 not only get the benefit of more power strokes per second, but at the = higher rpm=20 the airflow in your manifold (assuming you are using the same dia tubes = as=20 before)  is at a higher velocity and therefore great inertia for = stuffing=20 even more air/fuel mixture into the combustion chamber when the port=20 opens. 
 
In any case, sounds like all pluses for us guys = with nose=20 gears {:>)
 
 
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tracy = Crook
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 = 11:02=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: C = mounting on a=20 B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C drivetesting

The -C drive has very different internals but I will look at the=20 feasibility of reworking the -B housing to receive the -C guts.  = I think=20 it can be done.   Yes, the -C bolts right up to the same = adapter=20 plate.  I think you are right about the 2.85 becoming the = preferred=20 ratio, but only if you can handle the longer = prop.   You=20 nose draggers have the advantage here.
 
The more I fly it the better I like this setup.   The = higher=20 rpm was very disconcerting at first but I acclimated=20 rapidly.   And now that I have  digested the fact = that the=20 actual rpm difference at normally used throttle settings is only = about=20 5%, I absolutely love it. Another good sign is that the manifold = pressure is=20 now more than 5% lower at any given airspeed that I've = tested so=20 far.  Even if the wear rate is up 5% or so it would be a non = issue. =20
 
One more plus for the 2.85 is something I hesitate to = mention.  It's=20 kind of like the "engine making oil so I have to drain some out" = thing, kind=20 of unbelievable.   It makes sense that there would be less = prop=20 noise but I'm also getting less engine noise. 
 
I was getting tired of the increased noise with the Hushpower II = muffler=20 and was almost ready to put the Spintech back on even though it costs = at least=20 5 - 6 mph in drag.  But with the -C drive things have quieted = down=20 substantially.  I think part of the credit for this goes to the=20 difference in RPM moving the vibrations away from the resonance point = of the=20 sheet metal panels in my RV-4 but even observers on the ground have = mentioned=20 that the engine sounds quieter.
 
I better shut-up now, this is starting to sound too good to = be=20 true.
 
Tracy
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 = 8:30=20 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] C = mounting on a B=20 plate?? Renesis & RD-1C drivetesting
 
Sounds great thus far, Tracy
 
    Imagine having so much = thrust that=20 you can't hold the aircraft still for maximum static, must be tough=20 {:>).  If you initial observations hold regarding fuel = consumption=20 and performance, then I predict the 285 will soon become the = standard. =20 If the fuel burn/performance is a wash then only engine wear from = higher rpm=20 might be a factor, but since the rotary seems to only have = no/ minimum=20 wear in any case, that probably will not be a significant=20 factor.
 
  So how much are you given for 2.17:1 = trade=20 ins?  Seriously, will the B model mounting plate accommodate = the C=20 model gear box housing (looks like you mount it the same way).  = I=20 presume it would not be so simple as swapping out the internals as I = am=20 certain the internal mounting/housing is different in the = two.  =20 Third, in case you consider getting rid of that old performance = prop, put me=20 on top of your list.
 
Ed
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C41001.6D2576C0--