Message-ID: <000d01c34ac7$f5a0a880$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-2475436@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:55:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap


> Ed Anderson wrote:
>
 > >
> >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
> >

> >
> Ed, this was my experience in the turbo car. When the rear rotor went,
> there was no turbo action.
>
> --
> Perry Mick

Thanks for the information, Perry.

    Having worked with turbos on cars (in my younger days), I found that
folks put on large turbochargers and then were puzzled why no boost.  Just
not sufficient mass flow to generate enough spin to generate boost in most
cases.  Losing approx 1/2 of your exhaust mass flow with lost of a rotor is
bound to have an adverse effect on boost. So sounds like one ought not to
count on a turbo providing that extra margin (if it survives the fragments
of the apex seal).

Best Regards

Ed Anderson