Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b9) with ESMTP id 2474457 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:56:46 -0400 Received: from o7y6b5 (clt78-221.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.221]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with SMTP id h6EDrhqQ009051 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01bc01c34a10$e8cd32c0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:04:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 > > I can maintain level flight in the pattern with 3200 rpm, but that is near > > sea level (1600 MSL) which is of course not the same conditions > > that Chuck was faced with. So even though the single rotor was not able > to maintain > > flight, you might consider that it kept him airborn long enough for other > > alternatives. > Interesting. Perhaps thats another argument for a turbo... > > A interesting consideration, a one rotor running a turbo may indeed provide more power (or it may not have sufficient exhaust gas to produce boost given that the turbin was sized for a two rotor exhaust flow). However, the odds are great that if an apex seal has failed that fragments in the exhaust will also take out the turbo turbine. An unbalanced turbin wheel have been know to actually tear through the cast iron turbin housing as almost impossible as that would seem Ed Anderson.