|
|
|
Ben,
Hopefully you can now put that behind you.
PL has however put a lot of time toward
designing motor mounts. My guess is that there is more than one way of doing
things. I wouldn't build my mount exactly as you did yours - so what, that
doesn't make me right either.
BTW PL has never built an engine, he is an ideas
man as someone politely put it to me. He does attract a lot of knowledgeable
people his site, so to that extent the information is invaluable, for the
likes of someone like me, who needs all the help he can get.
We all have a story to tell and some much worse
than yours, lets move forward and talk no more about it. It's not worth the
aggravation.
George ( down under)
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|