X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.250.75] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 915298 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:08:05 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.250.75; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 06:07:19 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 4.171.150.11 by BAY115-DAV3.phx.gbl with DAV; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:07:19 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [4.171.150.11] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Horsepower - 2 rotor vs 3 rotor Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:07:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C612A0.968B0B80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 Seal-Send-Time: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:07:15 -0500 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2006 14:07:19.0801 (UTC) FILETIME=[81DBFE90:01C612CA] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C612A0.968B0B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with Ed's assessment Ken. The 20B is the natural choice for the = -10. You would also have a difficult time getting the CG right with the = Renesis. My -4 is at the aft CG limit with the Renesis (with a 220 lb = passenger and NO baggage). The -10 would require a REALLY long cowl & = engine mount to make it come out right. I would not even THINK of = fixing the problem with ballast. Goes against my constitution : ) OTOH, a 210 - 230 HP NA Renesis (fairly easy to do) would perform = pretty well in the -10 if you were to build the long nose that it = needed. Van initially offered a 210 HP (Cont. engine) option for the = -10 but dropped it when no one went for it.=20 Tracy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:42 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Horsepower - 2 rotor vs 3 rotor Ken, my calculations indicate that a 2 rotor (13B) would need to turn = approx=20 8800 RPM to produce 250 HP at sea level. Now if you use a = turbocharger and=20 run modest boost say around 5 psi you would still need to turn the = engine=20 around 7200 rpm to get 250 HP. Getting 250 HP in an automobile=20 installation is much easier (you have gears) than getting 250 HP with = a=20 fixed pitch prop. Even Mazda has reduced their initial HP claims = (250HP) on=20 the Renesis to a more realistic 237 (and even that is at its max rpm = nearly=20 9000). My personal opinion is that if I were going to put a rotary in an = RV-10, I=20 would go with the 3 rotor. You can get 250HP with a 3 rotor at less = than=20 6000 rpm and none of the complexities of turbochargers and at that rpm = the=20 rotor is quite happy (loafing really). Yes, they are more expensive, = but by=20 the time you turbocharged a 2 rotor properly, you would have nearly = the cost=20 of a 3 rotor. My 0.02 worth on the subject Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ken Peck" > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:59 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Horsepower - 2 rotor vs 3 rotor > Having read a bunch of stuff on this forum and other places, one = question=20 > still nags in the back of my mind. > > I'm building an RV-10, Vans recommends a Lycoming 540 producing 210 = - 260=20 > HP. When considering the possibilities of a Mazda rotary, obviously = the=20 > ultra sexy choice is one of those 3 rotor 20b's. But in a recent = post=20 > Bill Dube pointed to a Renesis RX8 13b 6 port engine on e-bay where = the=20 > seller states 250HP. > > You know where I'm going.... > > Can a 13b built and configured to put out that HP in a RV-10 last, = be=20 > happy, etc.? > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >=20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ ------=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C612A0.968B0B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with Ed's assessment Ken.  The 20B is the natural = choice for=20 the -10.
 
  You would also have a difficult time getting the CG = right with=20 the Renesis.  My -4 is at the aft CG = limit with=20 the Renesis (with a 220 lb passenger and NO baggage).  The -10 = would=20 require a REALLY long cowl & engine mount to make it come out=20 right.   I would not even THINK of fixing the problem with=20 ballast.  Goes against my constitution : )
 
 OTOH, a 210 - 230 HP NA Renesis (fairly easy to = do) would=20 perform pretty well in the -10 if you were to build the long nose that = it=20 needed.  Van initially offered a 210 HP (Cont. engine) = option for the=20 -10 but dropped it when no one went for it. 
 
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 = 8:42=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Horsepower - 2=20 rotor vs 3 rotor

Ken, my calculations indicate that a 2 rotor (13B) = would need=20 to turn approx
8800 RPM to produce 250 HP at sea level.  Now = if you=20 use a turbocharger and
run modest boost say around 5 psi  you = would=20 still need to turn the engine
around 7200 rpm to get 250 HP.  = Getting=20 250 HP   in an automobile
installation is much = easier  (you=20 have gears) than getting 250 HP with a
fixed pitch prop.  = Even Mazda=20 has reduced their initial HP claims (250HP) on
the Renesis to a = more=20 realistic 237 (and even that is at its max rpm nearly =
9000).

My=20 personal opinion is that if I were going to put a rotary in an RV-10, = I=20
would go with the 3 rotor.  You can get 250HP with a 3 rotor = at less=20 than
6000 rpm and none of the complexities of turbochargers and at = that=20 rpm the
rotor is quite happy (loafing really).  Yes, they are = more=20 expensive, but by
the time you turbocharged a 2 rotor properly, = you would=20 have nearly the cost
of a 3 rotor.

My 0.02 worth on the=20 subject

Ed

Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com-----=20 Original Message -----
From: "Ken Peck" <kenbpeck@comcast.net>
To: = "Rotary=20 motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent:=20 Friday, January 06, 2006 7:59 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Horsepower - = 2 rotor=20 vs 3 rotor


> Having read a bunch of stuff on this forum = and=20 other places, one question
> still nags in the back of my=20 mind.
>
> I'm building an RV-10, Vans recommends a = Lycoming 540=20 producing 210 - 260
> HP.  When considering the = possibilities of a=20 Mazda rotary, obviously the
> ultra sexy choice is one of those = 3 rotor=20 20b's.  But in a recent post
> Bill Dube pointed to a = Renesis RX8=20 13b 6 port engine on e-bay where the
> seller states=20 250HP.
>
> You know where I'm going....
>
> = Can a 13b=20 built and configured to put out that HP in a RV-10 last, be
> = happy,=20 etc.?
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> = Archive=20 and UnSub:   http://mail.lanca= ironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>=20



--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archi= ve and=20 UnSub:   http://mail.lanca= ironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
------=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C612A0.968B0B80--