X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.250.88] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 915383 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:49:14 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.250.88; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:48:28 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 4.171.150.11 by BAY115-DAV16.phx.gbl with DAV; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:48:28 +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] Engine Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:48:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C612AE.B7F7AEF0" 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 10:48:24 -0500 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2006 15:48:28.0902 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3535060:01C612D8] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C612AE.B7F7AEF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sounds reasonable to me Randy. You probably have the option of either = raising the RPM limit to 7000 or P port to get the 200 - 220 HP. I'd = opt for the former rather than the later for cost & time reasons. You = will still be cruising at 6000 or less when geared and proped for the = 7000 limit. If you do go for the P Port route, I'll be very interested = in the results. Be very careful about location & size of the port = though. This is virgin territory you will be tackling. Tracy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: randy echtinaw=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:33 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Engine Gentlemen, I am reaching the point of purchasing an engine and trying to =20 make a few decisions on what I want/need. What I have is a single =20 seat biplane, what I need is 200/220 hp. Maximum airframe speed is =20 180 mph. I would like to use a n/a Renesis engine, p-ported if =20 needed, turning at 6000 rpm using the 2.85 PSRU. I like the 6000 rpm =20 as it is easy on the engine. I like the 2.85 because the prop turns =20 in the "correct" direction. Using the slower turning "monster" prop =20 as has been discussed here appeals to me especially if it increases =20 climb rate. Is this HP realistic with this setup? If this setup is =20 not the best for what I need then what is? I am not an "engine man" =20 so my decisions will be based on the experience of others. Thank you for your advice, Randy -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C612AE.B7F7AEF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sounds reasonable to me Randy.   You probably have the = option of=20 either raising the RPM limit to 7000 or P port to get the 200 - 220 = HP. =20 I'd opt for the former rather than the later for cost & time=20 reasons.   You will still be cruising at 6000 or less when = geared and=20 proped for the 7000 limit.  If you do go for the P Port route, = I'll be=20 very interested in the results.  Be very careful about location = & size=20 of the port though.  This is virgin territory you will be = tackling.
 
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 = 10:33=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Engine

Gentlemen,
    I am reaching the = point of=20 purchasing an engine and trying to 
make a few decisions on = what I=20 want/need. What I have is a single 
seat biplane, what I need = is=20 200/220 hp. Maximum airframe speed is 
180 mph. I would like = to use a=20 n/a Renesis engine, p-ported if 
needed, turning at 6000 rpm = using=20 the 2.85 PSRU. I like the 6000 rpm 
as it is easy on the = engine. I=20 like the 2.85 because the prop turns 
in the "correct" = direction.=20 Using the slower turning "monster" prop 
as has been = discussed here=20 appeals to me especially if it increases 
climb rate. Is this = HP=20 realistic with this setup?  If this setup is 
not the = best for=20 what I need then what is? I am not an "engine man" 
so my = decisions=20 will be based on the experience of others.
Thank you for your=20 advice,
Randy

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archi= ve and=20 UnSub:   http://mail.lanca= ironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C612AE.B7F7AEF0--