Christian,

 

Thanks for the information and I’m sure several of us are looking forward to a few pictures. Since your using a single throttle body it must be installed before the plenum and not in the runners close to the engine. Having a plenum after the throttle body should solve the MP port sensor problems others have experienced with the PP pre-renesis engines.

 

Bobby

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:41 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: P-Port Renesis

 

On Thursday, 28 July 2016, Christian And Tamara Mcdonald <christamarmc@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Bobby

No worries will try to post a couple of pictures.

 

So far I have played around with the throttle bodies, only trying single ones ranging from original size to 65mm and now just fitted a 90mm.

I have attained approx only 300 rpm differance on the rotary but seems to have a fair bit more torque.

I'm currently running a prince p tip prop at 68" diameter 

At this point I have had the p port for nearly 240hrs and running so sweet. Total engine time around 540.

Idles sits on around 1800-2000rpm happily.

As far as construction I built from memory 2 x 21 " runners that route over the top of the engine to a 4 " plenum I built, I used the original renises fuel injectors x 4 with 2 placed near the rotors and 2 x the plenum to infancy mixing.

At this point the chatter seems to have gone as I have dropped the timing back 3 deg, I won't know for sure until the engine is disassembled down the track, but recently had the intake off for inspection and looks excellent inside, especially since I dropped my oil mixture rate.

I think personally that the rotary would love the small boost, I use a 3k elevation airstrip and single up in my rv7 can still get airborne in around 450-500 mtrs and an average 29c day.

 

I had toyed up with the ideah at the beginning to put a small belt driven blower on but are quite happy with the p porting now and recommend it to everyone now for simplicity and power reasons.

 

Cheers

 

Hope this helps

 

 

 

On Thursday, 28 July 2016, Bobby J. Hughes <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Christian,

 

I would love to learn more about your PP Renesis. Any pictures you can share? 

 

Throttle body setup and location?

Single \ double throttle body?

Where are you monitoring manifold pressure? A “T” installed between each rotor for average MP?

Warm\ cold Idle speeds?

Total hours on the PP?

Did you solve the rotor housing apex seal chatter?

Stock Renesis apex seals?

PP runner length?

 

I have a spare renesis I’m planning to turbo charge for 5#’s at takeoff and normalized at cruise. A PP could potential allow less boost (2-3 #’s) at takeoff and  safe normalization in cruise. Not sure about engine life with PP and turbo. Although less boost and less heat could be a good thing.

 

 Bobby Hughes

RV-10

Super Charged Renesis

295 Hours

 

 

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:49 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New PSRU on the Horizon

 

Hi Charlie

Sorry helps if I read the website, doh

 

I'm keen to try the new Peru with my prop, just seems a little shy of on song as it seems to really come on strong a around 6500-7500, just my 2 cents

 

Cheers

Christian

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016, Charlie England <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

On 7/26/2016 8:41 PM, Kelly Troyer wrote:

Group,

 

   This will be of interest to the Group.........Randy Kempf of  http://www.rotarpower.com/ in collaboration with

Neil Unger of Australia is gearing up to produce a new PSRU  that would seem to eliminate any weak points

in Tracy Crook's popular RDx searies of PSRU's.........Check out his website and the PSRU page........  

 

 

Kelly Troyer

 

 

Hi Kelly,

Thanks for the update. It's great that a drive will be available again, but it's a shame he chose such a wide ratio. Hardly anyone will want to operate the engine at 8k rpm, and even if they do, it will need a larger diameter prop than most homebuilts can swing safely, due to ground clearance issues. More typical operating rpms down in the 6k range mean sub-1800 prop rpm, which begs an even larger diameter prop.

Any chance he'll offer the more conventional 2.85? (Something closer to 2.5 would be even nicer, to get prop rpm closer to the design point for most homebuilt airframe/engine combos.)

Charlie