Return-Path: Received: from [128.83.126.134] (HELO mail.utexas.edu) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b9) with ESMTP-TLS id 2474982 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:06:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 12794 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 21:06:53 -0000 Received: from dhcp-191-101.per.utexas.edu (HELO benefits3.mail.utexas.edu) (146.6.191.101) by wb1.mail.utexas.edu with SMTP; 14 Jul 2003 21:06:53 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20030714160553.039e3458@localhost> X-Sender: msteitle@mail.utexas.edu@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:06:46 -0500 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: Mark Steitle Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_32205718==.ALT" --=====================_32205718==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Good argument for going with a 3-rotor. ;-)) Mark S. At 01:39 PM 7/14/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Here is a quote from PowerSport s website that gave me the impression >there would be plenty of power to limp home on one rotor: > > > >Because of the rotary engines characteristics the engine continues to run >smoothly with one of the rotors shut down and still develops 100 HP. > > > >That is a 54% loss of power from the official 215 HP max. Is this >particular to the PowerSport engine because of its porting >configuration? I personally can t see why it would be but I m just now >getting a handle on how these engines work. > > > >Jake Crause > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On >Behalf Of John Slade >Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:38 AM >To: Rotary motors in aircraft >Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap > > > >Perry said: > > I don't know if you are on Paul's list, but Chuck replied that the > engine did continue to run all the way down and extended his glide from > 15 to 21 miles. That is good news. He had power to taxi off the road > after landing. > > > >Yes, Perry. I read that. I was hoping there would be enough power to fly >home on one rotor. > > --=====================_32205718==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Good argument for going with a 3-rotor.  ;-))

Mark S.


At 01:39 PM 7/14/2003 -0700, you wrote:

Here is a quote from PowerSport s website that gave me the impression there would be plenty of power to limp home on one rotor:

 

Because of the rotary engines characteristics the engine continues to run smoothly with one of the rotors shut down and still develops 100 HP.

 

That is a 54% loss of power from the official 215 HP max.  Is this particular to the PowerSport engine because of its porting configuration?  I personally can t see why it would be but I m just now getting a handle on how these engines work.

 

Jake Crause   

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Slade
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:38 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap

 

Perry said:

 I don't know if you are on Paul's list, but Chuck replied that the engine did continue to run all the way down and extended his glide from 15 to 21 miles. That is good news. He had power to taxi off the road after landing.

 

Yes, Perry. I read that. I was hoping there would be enough power to fly home on one rotor.

 
--=====================_32205718==.ALT--