|
|
Ed & Rick,
The RX8 is good, I am using some parts in my single rotor development, however but the earlier engine housing are much easier to P-port, which would give the 200+ power you are looking for. Sure, Turbo will give you the additional as well, but so far I'm not sure we have sorted out all the Turbo problems other than for normalizing at altitude.
Then again there are differences of opinion on P-port sizing, some say 2" , however I tend to believe the Powersport direction of 44mm give sufficient breathing for the RPM we are dealing with and has some additional velocity for better VE (volumetric efficiency).
George (down under)
Hi Rick,
I've flown with both an 86 N/A(Naturally Aspired) engine and a 91 Turbo
Block (sans turbo). I switched from the 86 to the turbo block for several
of reasons (don't know if they were all valid).
1. The Turbo block intake ports did not have the auxillary secondary valve
to deal with (as did the 86 N/A block) and were simpler to 'Street port".
2. The turbo block exhaust port did not have the "splitter" as the 86 did.
Reports show the splitter knocks 8db off the noise level - which means it
also knocks off some power - how much is the (still) big question). The
downside is without the turbo, the turbo block is much nosier than N/A
blocks with the exhaust splitter. So if you live/fly in a noise sensitive
area you might want to either stay away from the turbo block (sans turbo) or
be prepared for some serious muffling.
3. I had read that the coolant galleys of the turbo were "better" designed
as the turbo block had to get rid of more heat due to its higher power.
Again, I have not ever found a credible Mazda source for this claim
4. The Turbo rotors have a bit less compression than the N/A rotors, so I
replaced the turbo rotors with the "higher" compression 9.7:1 N/a Rotor -
again to gain a small increase in power. The downside was of course the
additional expense.
With just a bit of attention to the induction and exhaust systems, you
should be able to get 160 HP without heroic efforts. Remember we generally
operate at lower rpm ranges than an all-out rotary racer - therefore produce
less HP. With some careful attention to the induction system, high
compression rotors, perhaps some street porting - 170 -180 HP are possible
with the older 13B.
If I were doing it today, I would without question go with the Renesis. A
bit more power, bit newer block, no spare parts problem, etc. On the other
hand, if you have a ready to roll older 13B then I would not hesitate to use
it.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Rick Van Camp
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:10 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Taildragger Power Requirements
All,
I'm new here, been on AREN for a few years and was encouraged to join
this list by John Slade. Many thanks John it looks like there are many
practical owners and builders here.
I have had numerous thoughts on which aircraft and rotary engine
configuration during the recent weeks. The complication that changes
all of this is my desire to see wilderness and teach my toddler aged son
to appreciate it properly. For me this translates into a need for a
float plane.
Consider the Stinson 108-2 as a candidate aircraft. The power output
that works well in this aircraft is the 210 TCM IO-360 fuel injected
6-cylinder. This gives me a baseline target which the 13B should
readily be able to achieve. The difficulty is I hear what I
(subjectively) think is too much mysticism regarding obtaining power
levels out of the 13B. Am I missing something?
The other complication is I like what I read about the Turbo-II 13B from
1989(?) to 1991. Maybe as early as 1987; I'm uncertain. I like this
engine package because it produces good power from the OEM and it
features what should be some useful components for the job. I really
like the comments I've read regarding the turbo charger reduces the
engine noise level.
Please advise.
Rick
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|