X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost03.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5543491 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 May 2012 11:32:57 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.103; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-74-235-253-90.mco.bellsouth.net[74.235.253.90]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc03) with SMTP id <20120515153220H0300f3svae>; Tue, 15 May 2012 15:32:20 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [74.235.253.90] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Fuel Flow Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:32:20 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01CD328E.646D9360" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ac0yo2igL3Hm8q5oSr2zOCVvrtjxLgABoBbQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01CD328E.646D9360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bobby, The Renesis has a 10:1 compression ratio. Are you sure you are not getting detonation at high (30-40) manifold pressures and low (1700 prop) rpms? These considerations and the fact that I just don't have room to squeeze it in are the reasons that I decided against a turbo. The stock (car) engine has a knock sensor, but we don't have any way to monitor it and with the noise and headsets to cancel it out, I doubt that we would ever hear detonation unless engine parts were flying past our ears. :>) I would like a little more power, but for me, it would be easier to install a 20B than to switch to a turbo. I have enough room behind the engine that a 20B would set on my existing motor mount. All I would have to do is make up a mount plate for the 20B that has the mounting ears in the positions of the 13B ears. I could even use a little more weight in the front for W&B, so the extra weight would also probably work well also. My plane is heavier than a RV6/7 by about 500 lbs, so I could use the HP on takeoff and same for cruise as well. I briefly touched on this mount plate idea a year or so ago with the Cozy Girrls, but they didn't seem to be interested in making the mount plate although it would be pretty simple to leave 13B as well as 20B ears on a 20B mount. The rotary HP is really a factor of the rpm. When you dial it down in rpm, the HP drops to that level. I am not certain what effect the turbo would have on this number, but for NA engine, 5K rpm is about 160 HP, 6K=180, 7K=200, etc. This is pretty close to the same on all the Dyno graphs that I have seen. Pretty much no matter how "souped up" the engine is, it still follows that same HP curve. This becomes a problem for those of us who want to develop 200HP but run at 5K rpm. That aint gonna happen with the two rotor engine. :>( Bill _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bobby J. Hughes Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:02 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Fuel Flow Charlie, This configuration is my sweet spot. Efficiency declines rapidly with faster rpm. I can also run the same prop rpm at a lower manifold pressure 24-26 "and see almost the same fuel burn at 150 mph TAS. Increasing the manifold pressure to 30 or a little higher increases speed but the fuel burn barely increases. At the other extreme with prop set to 2350-2400, 30 -32" MP I see a top speed of 190 mph but the fuel burn shows 16 gph. Not good. The lyc RV10's are way more efficient at this speed. I suspect the super charger drive losses are a big factor at the high power settings. Possibly up to 2 gph? It's possible the fuel flow is not accurate in the high power configuration. I'm not comfortable running the engine that hard for very long so calibration verification is not possible. I've been reconsidering a turbo but still not convinced the renesis exhaust ports are up to the abuse. Although a looser turbo may eliminate the housing damage that has occurred in the turbo RX8's. I wonder what intercooled, 38" MP at 1900 rpm would do for speed and fuel burn? Bobby From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie England Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:57 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Thanks Tracy! Hi Bobby, Those are pretty good numbers for a 4seat plane, even a -10, at that fuel flow. Have you checked it at around 11gph? Thanks, Charlie On 05/14/2012 03:26 PM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote: Cruise rpm is typically 1700-1825 prop \ 4850-5200 engine. The low rpm may influence my EGT's. In this configuration I see 160-165 MPH TAS at 8-8.5 gph at 6000 foot. It does a little better up high. Bobby RV10 Bill, I see around 1650F max. At cruise altitude running less than 30"MP I can lean to about 1475F. Bobby From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:06 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Thanks Tracy! The EM-2 mixture is working fine now, Tracy. I appreciate the rapid turnaround. I wanted to ask you about the EGTs I should expect from the Renesis. I am getting EGTs in the upper 17s. I think I expected them to be a couple of hundred lower than that. I don't doubt the accuracy because the EGTs report a pretty accurate OAT when I first arrive at the hangar and before I start the engine. I did some relearning of the EC-2 during the flight today between 18 and 29 inches manifold pressure. This was done at 2K feet. The MAP was lowered considerably and now the mid point of the graph is pretty close to the knob center, maybe 12:30-1:00 o'clock. A good explanation of how to lean would be very helpful for me at this point. Also I am wondering what fuel burn most are getting at cruise. I am still calibrating this function, but I would like to know what to expect if I ever get it right. Bill B ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01CD328E.646D9360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bobby,

 

The Renesis has a 10:1 compression ratio.  Are you sure you are not getting detonation at high (30-40) manifold pressures and low (1700 prop) rpms?  These considerations = and the fact that I just don’t have room to squeeze it in are the reasons = that I decided against a turbo.  The stock (car) engine has a knock sensor, but we = don’t have any way to monitor it and with the noise and headsets to cancel it = out, I doubt that we would ever hear detonation unless engine parts were flying past = our ears.  :>)

 

I would like a little more power, = but for me, it would be easier to install a 20B than to switch to a turbo.  = I have enough room behind the engine that a 20B would set on my existing motor = mount.  All I would have to do is make up a mount plate for the 20B that has the mounting ears in the positions of the 13B ears.  I could even use a = little more weight in the front for W&B, so the extra weight would also = probably work well also. My plane is heavier than a RV6/7 by about 500 lbs, so I = could use the HP on takeoff and same for cruise as = well.

 

I briefly touched on this mount = plate idea a year or so ago with the Cozy Girrls, but they didn’t seem to be interested in making the mount plate although it would be pretty simple = to leave 13B as well as 20B ears on a 20B = mount.

 

The rotary HP is really a factor of = the rpm.  When you dial it down in rpm, the HP drops to that = level.  I am not certain what effect the turbo would have on this number, but for NA = engine, 5K rpm is about 160 HP, 6K=3D180, 7K=3D200, = etc.

This is pretty close to the same on = all the Dyno graphs that I have seen.  Pretty much no matter how = “souped up” the engine is, it still follows that same HP curve.  This = becomes a problem for those of us who want to develop 200HP but run at 5K = rpm.  That aint gonna happen with the two rotor engine.  = :>(

 

Bill

 

From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bobby J. Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, = 2012 10:02 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Fuel = Flow

 

Charlie,

 <= /o:p>

This = configuration is my sweet spot. Efficiency declines rapidly with faster rpm.  I = can also run the same prop rpm at a lower manifold pressure 24-26 “and see = almost the same fuel burn at 150 mph TAS. Increasing the manifold pressure to = 30 or a little higher increases speed but the fuel burn barely increases. At the = other extreme with prop set to 2350-2400, 30 -32” MP I see a top speed = of 190 mph but the fuel burn shows 16 gph. Not good. The lyc RV10’s are = way more efficient at this speed. I suspect the super charger drive losses are a = big factor at the high power settings.  Possibly up to 2 = gph?   It’s possible the fuel flow is not accurate in the high power configuration.  I’m not comfortable running the engine that = hard for very long so calibration verification is not possible.  I’ve = been reconsidering a turbo but still not convinced the renesis exhaust ports = are up to the abuse. Although a looser turbo may eliminate the housing damage = that has occurred in the turbo RX8’s.   I wonder what = intercooled, 38” MP at 1900 rpm would do for speed and fuel = burn?

 <= /o:p>

Bobby

 <= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotar= y@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie = England
Sent: Monday, May 14, = 2012 8:57 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Thanks Tracy!

 

Hi Bobby,

Those are pretty good numbers for a 4seat plane, even a -10, at that = fuel flow. Have you checked it at around 11gph?

Thanks,

Charlie


On 05/14/2012 03:26 PM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote: =

Cruise rpm = is typically 1700-1825 prop \ 4850-5200 engine. The low rpm may influence = my EGT’s. In this configuration I see 160-165 MPH TAS at 8-8.5 gph at = 6000 foot. It does a little better up high.

 

Bobby=

RV10<= /font>

 

Bill,=

 

I see = around 1650F max. At cruise altitude running less than 30”MP I can lean to = about 1475F.

 

Bobby =

 

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancairon= line.net] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
Sent: Saturday, May 12, = 2012 7:06 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Thanks Tracy!

 

The EM-2 mixture is working fine = now, Tracy.  I = appreciate the rapid turnaround.

 

I wanted to ask you about the EGTs = I should expect from the Renesis.  I am getting EGTs in the upper = 17s.  I think I expected them to be a couple of hundred lower than that.  = I don’t doubt the accuracy because the EGTs report a pretty accurate = OAT when I first arrive at the hangar and before I start the = engine.

 

I did some relearning of the EC-2 = during the flight today between 18 and 29 inches manifold pressure.  This = was done at 2K feet.  The MAP was lowered considerably and now the mid = point of the graph is pretty close to the knob center, maybe 12:30-1:00 o’clock.

 

A good explanation of how to lean = would be very helpful for me at this point.  Also I am wondering what fuel = burn most are getting at cruise.  I am still calibrating this function, = but I would like to know what to expect if I ever get it = right.

 

Bill B

 

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01CD328E.646D9360--