X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4030263 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:26:37 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (mail.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.34]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87518173838 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:26:00 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id C5B37BEC016 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:25:58 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <45EBE0C10A5543599C6CC6986380D9D7@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Cooling Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:25:58 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA80C7.F1FBF8F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091218-1, 12/18/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA80C7.F1FBF8F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark,=20 Anything's possible, depending upon cost. I'm sure you could get a 3 = rotor crank made when the 16X comes out, can't see a problem with length = considering the rotors are thinner and would therefore make the 3 rotor = shorter than the current 20B. The people making the 3 rotor cranks will = soon make them available- just a matter of changing some sizes. The overall height and width dimensions are the same as the 13B as they = made the water passages thinner - don't know if that's a good thing. = They must know what their doing. George ( down under) George, I think there are a whole bunch of builders waiting in the wings for = the 16X to become available. For the first 5-10 years, they would be = bringing a premium price-wise. The one thing the 16X doesn't offer = though is a third rotor. I feel much better having an extra rotor, just = in case one of the other two decide to stop producing power. But that's = just my personal preference. What I would really like is a 3-rotor = version of the 16X (24X). Mark =20 On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM, George Lendich = wrote: Mark, I'm wondering about the 16X or the 16X Mark 2, and what that will = give in regard to hp. May be impractical to go the 3 rotor with the 16X = , although anything is doable, but it sure would be a nice weight and = may be your answer with boosted hp for TO and climb. From memory ( and that's not a good thing) I believe their looking = at the 70mm and 76mm rotor width - something to do how the flame front = is affected in the narrow housing. I'm wondering how the HP stands up = without a very complex inlet manifold. I have seen some photo's on the internet and if they are indeed 16X = prototypes they look very similar to the 13B Renesis with a narrow = rotor- something to do with increased thermal efficiency with the narrow = rotor. My guess is that there is a reduced squish area with a narrow = rotor as well. Personally I would have liked a wider rotor, however = emissions priorities have it over straight power in the current climate. Just thinking out aloud! Has anyone got any additional info on the new engine? George ( down under) George,=20 Yes, at 7500 max rpm, I probably won't see 375hp. And at my = normal cruise rpm of 5200, I'll be lucky to see 300hp. But that is why = I'm building the pport, for that little extra over the side port n/a = engine. I do have a ram-air system, but it only provides about 1/2" MAP = boost. So, I'll take what I get. I anticipate the pport engine will be = lighter due to a simplified intake and a new exhaust. If I can shave = 10-15#, then a turbo could also be in my future. =20 In reality, I can hit VNE with the present motor, so any hp beyond = what I have now is not good for much except higher climb rates. =20 Mark On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, George Lendich = wrote: Mark, I notice your Hp requirements for the 20B, which is 125hp per = rotor. This exactly what I'm aiming for in a single rotor application, = but would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's all I got. Given that the motor can only gulp so much fuel and air and HP = is dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our case. Are you = considering any forced induction other than tuned inlet . I've opted to use the RX8 high compression rotor to give me some = addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to give higher inlet velocity, = however my maths indicate even with this arrangement, 125hp might be = out of the question. Certainly higher RPM would solve the problem, but = that's not available with reduction ratio I'm considering and many are = using, might get to 7,500 but that's it. George ( down under) George,=20 Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling = my current engine. But I am building a P-port 20B to replace this motor = downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 =3D 300). The = Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x 11 x 3). Close enough = for government work. =20 Mark ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA80C7.F1FBF8F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark,
Anything's possible, depending upon = cost. I'm sure=20 you could get a 3 rotor crank made when the 16X comes out, can't see a = problem=20 with length considering the rotors are thinner and would therefore make = the 3=20 rotor shorter than the current 20B. The people making the 3 rotor cranks = will=20 soon make them available- just a matter of changing some = sizes.
The overall height and width dimensions = are the=20 same as the 13B as they made the water passages thinner - don't know if = that's a=20 good thing. They must know what their doing.
George ( down under)
George,
 
I think there are a whole bunch of builders waiting in the wings = for the=20 16X to become available.  For the first 5-10 years, they would be = bringing a premium price-wise.  The one thing the=20 16X doesn't offer though is a third rotor.  I feel much = better=20 having an extra rotor, just in case one of the other = two decide=20 to stop producing power.  But that's just my personal = preference. =20 What I would really like is a 3-rotor version of the 16X (24X).
 
Mark 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM, George = Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> = wrote:
Mark,
I'm wondering about the 16X or the = 16X Mark 2,=20 and what that will give in regard to hp.  May be impractical to = go the=20 3 rotor with the 16X , although anything is doable,  but it = sure would=20 be a nice weight and may be your answer with boosted hp for TO and=20 climb.
 
From memory ( and that's not a good = thing) I=20 believe their looking at the 70mm and 76mm rotor width - something = to do how=20 the flame front is affected in the narrow housing. I'm wondering how = the HP=20 stands up without a very complex  inlet manifold.
 
I have seen some photo's on the = internet and if=20 they are indeed 16X prototypes they look very similar to the 13B = Renesis=20 with a narrow rotor- something to do with increased thermal = efficiency with=20 the narrow rotor. My guess is that there is a reduced squish area = with a=20 narrow rotor as well. Personally I would have liked  a wider = rotor,=20 however emissions priorities have it over straight power in the = current=20 climate.
 
Just thinking out = aloud!
Has anyone got any additional info = on the new=20 engine?
George ( down under)

George,
 
Yes, at 7500 max rpm, I probably won't see 375hp.  And = at my=20 normal cruise rpm of 5200, I'll be lucky to see 300hp.  But = that is=20 why I'm building the pport, for that little extra over the side = port n/a=20 engine.  I do have a ram-air system, but it only provides = about 1/2"=20 MAP boost.  So, I'll take what I get.  I anticipate the = pport=20 engine will be lighter due to a simplified intake and a new = exhaust. =20 If I can shave 10-15#, then a turbo could also be in my=20 future.  
 
In reality, I can hit VNE with the present motor,=20 so any hp beyond what I have now is not good = for much=20 except higher climb rates. 
 
Mark

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, George = Lendich=20 <lendich@aanet.com.au> wrote:
Mark,
I notice your Hp requirements = for the 20B,=20 which is 125hp per rotor. This exactly what I'm aiming for in a = single=20 rotor application, but would be happy enough with 115hp, if = that's all I=20 got.
 
Given that the motor can only = gulp so much=20 fuel and air and HP is dependent on RPM, which is restricted in = our=20 case. Are you considering any forced induction other than tuned=20 inlet .
 
I've opted to use the RX8 high = compression=20 rotor to give me some addition HP and am using 44mm inlets = to give=20 higher inlet velocity, however my maths indicate even with = this =20 arrangement, 125hp might be out of the question. Certainly = higher RPM=20 would solve the problem, but that's not available with reduction = ratio=20 I'm considering and many are using, might get to 7,500 but = that's=20 it.
George ( down = under)
 
 
 
George,
 
Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of = cooling my=20 current engine.  But I am building a P-port 20B to = replace=20 this motor downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x = .8 =3D=20 300).  The Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 = x 11 x=20 3).  Close enough for government work. 
 
=
Mark



------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA80C7.F1FBF8F0--