X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-d20.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.136] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 915609 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:25:06 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.139.136; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-d20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.75.538318de (15900) for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-d19 (mblk-d19.mblk.aol.com [205.188.149.11]) by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v107.13) with ESMTP id MAILINID93-3e1c43bec3e2a; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:24:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:24:18 -0500 Message-Id: <8C7E10DEC507E27-F08-114D6@mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com> From: wrjjrs@aol.com References: Received: from 66.127.99.234 by mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com (205.188.149.11) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:24:18 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 15106 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Horsepower - 2 rotor vs 3 rotor Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MailBlocks_8C7E10DEC3FCDBF_F08_10925_mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net X-AOL-IP: 205.188.149.11 X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MailBlocks_8C7E10DEC3FCDBF_F08_10925_mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ken, You will probably get several replies but here goes. Yes you could do a Renesis (2 Rotor) for the 10. The problem is that it would be difficult to impossible to use the cars finely tuned intake and exhaust manifolds in the plane. The more critical being the intake. I you can build a good manifold that mimics the standard one, remembering that we only need the shorter high-speed circuit you could get good results. The bigger problem really is that the Renisis produces that 235 HP (Mazdas more reliable number) at 9K RPM. Most of the PSRU's are less than 3:1 reduction so your output would be less, that is if you didn't build your own. Ken Welter uses a belt reduction for his Coot amphibian at 3:1 with good results, but is always easier to use a larger engine at less than max output than a smaller one running balls out! Provided the weight and balance is OK with the larger engine of course. This is the basic premise used on all the standard aircraft engines. A 540 ci. auto engine making only 260 HP now days would be laughed at, but it work well for the particular design mission. So the conclusion? It is possible to do a renesis RV-10 just more difficult. Bill Jepson -----Original Message----- From: Ken Peck To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:59:37 -0500 Subject: [FlyRotary] Horsepower - 2 rotor vs 3 rotor Having read a bunch of stuff on this forum and other places, one question still nags in the back of my mind. I'm building an RV-10, Vans recommends a Lycoming 540 producing 210 - 260 HP. When considering the possibilities of a Mazda rotary, obviously the ultra sexy choice is one of those 3 rotor 20b's. But in a recent post Bill Dube pointed to a Renesis RX8 13b 6 port engine on e-bay where the 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 happy, etc.? -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ ----------MailBlocks_8C7E10DEC3FCDBF_F08_10925_mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

Ken,

You will probably get several replies but here goes. Yes you could do a Renesis (2 Rotor) for the 10. The problem is that it would be difficult to impossible to use the cars finely tuned intake and exhaust manifolds in the plane. The more critical being the intake. I you can build a good manifold that mimics the standard one, remembering that we only need the shorter high-speed circuit you could get good results. The bigger problem really is that the Renisis produces that 235 HP (Mazdas more reliable number) at 9K RPM. Most of the PSRU's are less than 3:1 reduction so your output would be less, that is if you didn't build your own. Ken Welter uses a belt reduction for his Coot amphibian at 3:1 with good results, but is always easier to use a larger engine at less than max output than a smaller one running balls out! Provided the weight and balance is OK with the larger engine of course. This is the basic premise used on all the standard aircraft engines. A 540 ci. auto engine making only 260 HP now days would be laughed at, but it work well for the particular design mission. So the conclusion? It is possible to do a renesis RV-10 just more difficult.

Bill Jepson

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Peck <kenbpeck@comcast.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:59:37 -0500
Subject: [FlyRotary] Horsepower - 2 rotor vs 3 rotor

Having read a bunch of stuff on this forum and other places, one question still nags in the back of my mind.

I'm building an RV-10, Vans recommends a Lycoming 540 producing 210 - 260 HP. When considering the possibilities of a Mazda rotary, obviously the ultra sexy choice is one of those 3 rotor 20b's. But in a recent post Bill Dube pointed to a Renesis RX8 13b 6 port engine on e-bay where the 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 happy, etc.?
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/

----------MailBlocks_8C7E10DEC3FCDBF_F08_10925_mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com--