X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4183138 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:40:29 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.39; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100330023953.EOFE20722.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:39:53 -0400 Received: from willsPC ([68.105.86.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id zEft1d00N1k005Q03Eft48; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:39:53 -0400 X-VR-Score: -50.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=3rYd4LfcKLU522ZHXfO06E856SAcXud2pffNCWjpFlA= c=1 sm=1 a=hGOUHFdajaQA:10 a=XruvlouZCDbGUgEaRUiNZQ==:17 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=orgA8RruNOLhqrSxWcIA:9 a=hUDYsTc55J9bRBI5sD0A:7 a=ay8kmQMdPV9cuj14Dox68bGS1qYA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=BZ0N_sXcm4JlnedB:21 a=aBg6Ghppn5gKSE0t:21 a=w7OEVUiIuCQqiTZvPecA:9 a=k32cBSZkhYQnlcD-cIsA:7 a=ki2qlcT5v8ofOXVPl3LV_BSeCREA:4 a=XruvlouZCDbGUgEaRUiNZQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: From: "Mike Wills" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:39:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008F_01CACF77.9A7C0F80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008F_01CACF77.9A7C0F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm aware of the tuning difficulties of open loop EFI - nothing like = first hand experience. Of course it was mostly my own fault in = stubbornly persisting in trying to tune without proper instrumentation. = I think you might find that sticking with mechanical FI helps you in the = marketing department. The great majority of pilots who see my install = are put off by the reliance on electronics. Even a good friend/co-worker = who is an EE and specializes in control systems used in UAV applications = questions the reliance on electronics. Just looking at the picture of Steve Thomas' Mistral installation. Some = of the hardware such as the intake manifold, if it were readily = available, would interest me. I contacted Mistral when I first heard of = them and couldn=E2=80=99t get the time of day from them. As a result my = intake was eyeball engineered and fabricated the best I could given = limited welding and machining skills. Hardware like this would make this = engine more accessible to more builders. Mike Wills From: wrjjrs@aol.com=20 Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:27 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long) Mike, You misread me in this case. While I want to start with simple pieces my = hope is in another direction. My hope is for a full EFI or EMS. For our = use however simply using an EFI is not the answer. Something most people = are unaware of is the difficulty of tuning any non closed loop = injection. This is true of anybodies system. Tracy has done a fine job = of producing a reasonable EMS. The problem is most people are no better = at tuning it than they were with carburetors! This isn't a knock on the = system, rather that most people aren't good tuners. I'm holding out for = direct injection myself. I'm not adverse to electronics but I want a = package In place that has an advantage over carburetors in the first = place. Bill Jepson=20 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- From: "Mike Wills" =20 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:49:14 -0700 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long) Thanks Bill. I saw the PSRU when I met Everett and Alan in the mid 90s. = It was a nice piece of equipment. The PP with mechanical injection = should be a good setup and should attract those who are afraid of the = EFI stuff. Alas, unless I am misreading you, it doesn=E2=80=99t appear that you are = headed in the same direction I am. Tracy's stuff is working for me (and = others) and is proven. Would be nice to see you (or someone else equally = knowledgeable) fill in the gaps Tracy doesn=E2=80=99t address. An engine = with aluminum housings to replace the stock iron housings, properly = engineered (and dyno proven) intake and exhaust, etc.... And built to = fit my airplane (if it will fit an RV-4 it will probably fit anything). Of course a fully packaged engine/psru ready to bolt on probably makes = sense from a marketing standpoint. Good luck. Mike Wills From: WRJJRS@aol.com=20 Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:40 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long) In a message dated 3/27/2010 7:58:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, = rv-4mike@cox.net writes: Bill, I'm sure you are right, less expensive is more marketable. Same point = I tried to make earlier. It was a joke. Having said that, not sure I wouldn=E2=80=99t be willing to pay a = sizable amount (easy to say since its all hypothetical). The thing is = I've been thinking about a Harmon Rocket for a few years now. What would = it be worth to get HR performance without having to build an entirely = new airplane? Since we are talking hypothetically, what would that $25,000 engine = look like? How much of it would be Mazda and how much of it would be = custom? If we were willing to split the difference and essentially = retain all the Mazda pieces except the iron housings are we still = talking about $25K? Just thinking out loud here. Mike Mike, I understood the joke, and I am sorry to throw cold water on it. The = Superlite engine retained the Mazda trochoid housings but even those = were modified to remove as much weight as possible. They also went dry = sump and fed the water at the center housing out through the spark plug = area. The engine looked like the entire engine was the shape of the = rotor housings with all aluminum end plates and p-ports. The engine = mounts were extended "ears" on the end plates. The previously mentioned = custom-built planetary on the front and the pendulous damper on the = rear. Also of interest was that it was plugs up, and turned backward to = achieve normal prop rotation! With exception of the rotors and housings = every part was custom including the e-shaft. They then came to their senses and built the iron eagle engine. It = looked like a regular 13B because it was. The PSRU is a nice one using = the internal ring gear and pinion, spur cut. I think it is one of the = better designs and a benefit is that it offsets the engine 2 inches down = which really helps cowl clearance. They also used a modified aircraft = certified mechanical FI with the standard leaning knob. I hope these = things can be saved and sold for a much lower price. It would help us = all tremendously. Bill Jepson ------=_NextPart_000_008F_01CACF77.9A7C0F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm aware of the tuning = difficulties of open=20 loop EFI - nothing like first hand experience. Of course it was mostly = my own=20 fault in stubbornly persisting in trying to tune without proper = instrumentation.=20 I think you might find that sticking with mechanical FI helps you in the = marketing department. The great majority of pilots who see my install = are put=20 off by the reliance on electronics. Even a good friend/co-worker who is = an EE=20 and specializes in control systems used in UAV applications questions = the=20 reliance on electronics.
 
Just looking at the picture of Steve = Thomas'=20 Mistral installation. Some of the hardware such as the intake manifold, = if it=20 were readily available, would interest me. I contacted Mistral when = I first=20 heard of them and couldn=E2=80=99t get the time of day from them. As a = result my intake=20 was eyeball engineered and = fabricated the=20 best I could given limited welding and machining skills. Hardware like = this=20 would make this engine more accessible to more builders.
 
Mike Wills

Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:27 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning=20 (Long)

Mike,
You misread me in this case. While I want to = start with=20 simple pieces my hope is in another direction. My hope is for a full EFI = or EMS.=20 For our use however simply using an EFI is not the answer. Something = most people=20 are unaware of is the difficulty of tuning any non closed loop = injection. This=20 is true of anybodies system. Tracy has done a fine job of producing a = reasonable=20 EMS. The problem is most people are no better at tuning it than they = were with=20 carburetors! This isn't a knock on the system, rather that most people = aren't=20 good tuners. I'm holding out for direct injection myself. I'm not = adverse to=20 electronics but I want a package In place that has an advantage over = carburetors=20 in the first place.
Bill Jepson=20

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From: "Mike Wills" <rv-4mike@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:49:14 -0700
To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft<flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning=20 (Long)

Thanks Bill. I saw the PSRU when I = met Everett=20 and Alan in the mid 90s. It was a nice piece of equipment. The PP with=20 mechanical injection should be a good setup and should attract those who = are=20 afraid of the EFI stuff.
 
Alas, unless I am misreading you, it = doesn=E2=80=99t=20 appear that you are headed in the same direction I am. Tracy's stuff is = working=20 for me (and others) and is proven. Would be nice to see you (or someone = else=20 equally knowledgeable) fill in the gaps Tracy doesn=E2=80=99t address. = An engine with=20 aluminum housings to replace the stock iron housings, properly = engineered (and=20 dyno proven) intake and exhaust, etc.... And built to fit my airplane = (if it=20 will fit an RV-4 it will probably fit anything).
 
Of course a fully packaged = engine/psru ready to=20 bolt on probably makes sense from a marketing standpoint. Good=20 luck.
 
Mike Wills

Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:40 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning=20 (Long)

In a message dated 3/27/2010 7:58:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, rv-4mike@cox.net writes:
Bill,
 
I'm sure you are right, less = expensive is more=20 marketable. Same point I tried to make earlier. It was a = joke.
 
Having said that, not sure I = wouldn=E2=80=99t be=20 willing to pay a sizable amount (easy to say since its all = hypothetical). The=20 thing is I've been thinking about a Harmon Rocket for a few years now. = What=20 would it be worth to get HR performance without having to build an = entirely=20 new airplane?
 
Since we are talking = hypothetically, what would=20 that $25,000 engine look like? How much of it would be Mazda and = how much=20 of it would be custom? If we were willing to split the difference and=20 essentially retain all the Mazda pieces except the iron housings = are we=20 still talking about $25K? Just thinking out loud here.
 
Mike
Mike,
 I understood the joke, and I am sorry to throw = cold=20 water on it. The Superlite engine retained the Mazda trochoid housings = but even=20 those were modified to remove as much weight as possible. They also went = dry=20 sump and fed the water at the center housing out through the spark plug = area.=20 The engine looked like the entire engine was the shape of the rotor = housings=20 with all aluminum end plates and p-ports. The engine mounts were = extended "ears"=20 on the end plates. The previously mentioned custom-built planetary = on the=20 front and the pendulous damper on the rear. Also of interest was that it = was=20 plugs up, and turned backward to achieve normal prop rotation! With = exception of=20 the rotors and housings every part was custom including the=20 e-shaft.
 They then came to their senses and built the = iron eagle=20 engine. It looked like a regular 13B because it was. The PSRU is a = nice one=20 using the internal ring gear and pinion, spur cut. I think it is one of = the=20 better designs and a benefit is that it offsets the engine 2 inches=20 down which really helps cowl clearance. They also used = a modified=20 aircraft certified mechanical FI with the standard leaning knob. I hope = these=20 things can be saved and sold for a much lower price. It would help us = all=20 tremendously.
Bill Jepson 
------=_NextPart_000_008F_01CACF77.9A7C0F80--