Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b9) with ESMTP id 2474475 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:05:50 -0400 Received: from o7y6b5 (clt78-221.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.221]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with SMTP id h6EDxepN029653 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01ce01c34a12$2cd79ae0$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 10:14:01 -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 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap > 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... ---- ===> My thoughts exactly, especially if you find a way to make the max boost adjustable, so you can use "emergency" boost if needed. Rusty If you could ensure that the apex seal fragments did not enter the exhaust and hit the turbin blades spinning >50,000 rpm, then I would agree. Otherwise, you could end up losing a turbo as well as a rotor housing, rotor and side housings. Also, not certain that a turbo sized for a two rotor exhaust flow would get sufficient exhaust mass flow from only one rotor to produce boost. Guess its something Rusty can check out for us. Ed Anderson