To keep this thing fair I will post the hatchet job Mr Lamar posted on the net. Before this I had never heard of him. The same time this happened I got over 1000 hits on my website, the thing that bothered me was I have a "contact me" page on my website.. A decent person would have opened up a dialog to ask me reasons and debate me on how I got to the end result of my plane. For whatever reason he didn't want my side to be told,,, only his.... Bizarre for sure.
Ben.
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several friends.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the "801"
“This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrectly designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with having very thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing 5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or 37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
"The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours. Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's. Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the "suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or 110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter prop.
13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is " I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
--- On Sat, 10/3/09, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> wrote:
From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Zenith 801
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 2:43 AM
Ben,
Didn't see it and although on this list we may not all agree we seem to be much more tolerant of others ideas. Mind you the proof is always in the pudding. On PL don't sweat it, it's aggravation you don't need.
I have had exposure to some good ideas from the other list, but equally I've had a lot of help from this list.
Tell me Ben why, didn't you go for the Ford C6 planetary reduction box, you could machine any parts you need for yourself.
George (down under)
|
A couple of extra pounds is a safe trade off for crackshaft security in my opinion. I am a big fan of rotarys going back to the IMSA Camel Lights class at Daytona and other tracks. The main reason I didn't go that route on my prototype is I am based at the only airport in the world that is in a national park and keeping a rotary quiet for a few hundred hours while I go through testing/R&D phase is not a obstacle I wanted to overcome. There is a good possibility I will offer my services to fellow alternative engine guys who need custom machine work done. By now I am guessing most of you guys have read the hatchet job the wizard on the other list posted on the internet about me and my plane. He is a piece of work for sure.
Tailwinds.
Ben.
--- On Fri, 10/2/09, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> wrote:
From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Quiet is Deafening
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Date: Friday, October 2, 2009, 2:58 PM
Ben,
Fluid dampers are good but their heavy and I believe that's the reason why their not used in Aviation ( to my knowledge), especially where FWF weight is critical.
We have all been through 'baptism' on the other site.
I did mean to say Ben - why didn't you put all your efforts to developing the rotary . With your obvious skills you would have made a major contribution - perhaps next time !?
I'm still trying to get my head around those kick-outs on the
aft end of the rad outlet. I'm trying to confirm WHY they work - anyone got any suggestions.
George ( down under)
George (down under)
|
George. I have been building racing engines for years. I have never had a crack break from harmonics while using these guys product. Here is a link to their website that gives the details on how it functions.
After reading all the posts on here for the last few days I have to say you guys are all moving forward toward a common and successful conclusion. Keep on experimenting !!!!! The "other" rotary site I got trashed on is, how can I say this politely ??? Well, lets just say it is entertaining for sure. <GG>
Ben.
From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Quiet is Deafening
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2009, 2:39 PM
Ben,
Good work!
You certainly picked up on many of the problems associated with auto engine conversions. I particularly like the mixture block for the Holly carb.
While I was searching for a pen I missed what you said you used for a damper - did you say you used a fluid damper ?
George ( down under)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:59 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Quiet is Deafening
|
This will explain alot... Fire away with any questions.
From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Quiet is Deafening
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 7:33 PM
Don't be shy Ben - we all ears.
George ( down under)
|
Hi Jeff and all others. I am a newbie to the group but a serious auto engine fanatic. I feel your pain on the cooling issues with a "slow" plane. I can expand on that if you or anyone else is interested.
Tailwinds.
Ben.
From: Jeff Whaley <jwhaley@datacast.com>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Quiet is Deafening
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 9:02 AM
I guess some people must actually be flying …
Personally, I’m almost ready to fly again after another round of modifications to oil cooling system. My slow, 105 mph airplane is having difficulty keeping the oil temperature below redline (210F) above 4000 rpm. Have added a second oil cooler - now have one each side of engine, similar-looking to dual evaporator cores (for water) in RVs. Since I can’t cruise at 160 mph have decided that 2x surface area is needed to make up for 1.6x airspeed.
Jeff
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Kelly Troyer
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:16 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Quiet is Deafening
Anyone out there ??.....................<:)
--
Kelly Troyer
"Dyke Delta"_13B ROTARY Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"Mistral"_Backplate/Oil Manifold
-------------- Original message from "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@experimental-aviation.com>: --------------
Hey gang!
I came across a rare find this weekend.
Any serious rotorhead will certainly appreciate this.
Bluelines from 1973 of the General Motors Wankel Rotary engine.
I just put them up on eBay
http://tinyurl.com/GM-Rotary-drawings
Pat
|
|
|
|
|