X-Junk-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=G+5i7Os5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=tm/rk/YSO4J2PU7/3Xm9pA==:117 a=xycr6CVXJRVtFs4WRGOeRA==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=J70Eh1EUuV4A:10 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=YT3Yr15HAAAA:8 a=N8B9JuSIAAAA:8 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=_6GpL_ENAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=om2An_Wd_kC9WcLQ1QgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=gvSQh4r-fQ0A:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=6thZpbY8WWCIIql3:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=Urk15JJjZg1Xo0ryW_k8:22 a=wTiroRwonzHjqvaCcHYi:22 a=n01S8XkSGdFQBE5HZolH:22 a=GyA-uvUxXSCciAkwuKQO:22 a=grOzbf7U_OpcSX4AJOnl:22 From: "Marc Wiese cardmarc@charter.net" Received: from [47.43.20.31] (HELO impout007.msg.chrl.nc.charter.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2.14) with ESMTPS id 12939891 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 13:38:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=47.43.20.31; envelope-from=cardmarc@charter.net Received: from HomeDesktop ([97.94.202.172]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 7Nc9imKIUAWAq7Nc9iB0uP; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 17:38:10 +0000 Authentication-Results: charter.net; none X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=VfdDw2h9 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=xycr6CVXJRVtFs4WRGOeRA==:117 a=xycr6CVXJRVtFs4WRGOeRA==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=YT3Yr15HAAAA:8 a=N8B9JuSIAAAA:8 a=hOpmn2quAAAA:8 a=_6GpL_ENAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=om2An_Wd_kC9WcLQ1QgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=gvSQh4r-fQ0A:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=6thZpbY8WWCIIql3:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=Urk15JJjZg1Xo0ryW_k8:22 a=wTiroRwonzHjqvaCcHYi:22 a=n01S8XkSGdFQBE5HZolH:22 a=GyA-uvUxXSCciAkwuKQO:22 a=grOzbf7U_OpcSX4AJOnl:22 To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate question... Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:38:08 -0500 Message-ID: <00c701d56735$587ef2e0$097cd8a0$@charter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C8_01D5670B.6FAB5BE0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIKi1mb4esf+9kuHAg/5NFPM3zFvKa5Uv2w Content-Language: en-us X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfMvE+1ZQXK0q+UvAaoxkwCFpyaXShN2Ab4TqijT9ekv45zloc0bbJoALa/5nemWmY6Ic5dpVNfkkVq44kqIvS4uW1ySyq+B44RxZZMTEC7HmIYBQNXzb 7KquTQFKSl3bDTTb6fNDiuXgemo+p0wgFVEfA6JAPvoNefyPQ4qUGIPcOlDxmAcSwM+nL9How+79xA== This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01D5670B.6FAB5BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A Mustang P51 style water and oil cooler arrangement would be = ideal=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6? = But, if you are doing a mid engine design with shaft---? Best is = wherever pressure is highest, like base of windscreen, under prop, or = wing inlets such as the Mosquito bomber (and others) had. MW =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2019 7:09 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate question... =20 We are designing a new airframe, everyone says that we are mad designing = a new airframe and developing a "new" engine for it, but I think by = doing it that way we have the chance to design an airframe that has the = cooling ducts etc needed for the rotary, whereas previously rotaries = have been placed in existing airframes and then tried to cool them. =20 =20 On 9/09/2019 2:42 am, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com = wrote: That is is going to be awesome. What airframe is it going in?=20 =20 Dave Leonard. =20 On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 8:53 AM Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au = > wrote: Cheers Dave. Will stick with the turbo(s) then. =20 We are aiming for 350hp and we know that can easily be cooled, but the = engine guy is confident that with the right ductwork then a reliable = 700hp is possible - but I suspect that the fuel burn would be horrific. =20 On 8/09/2019 12:16 am, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com = wrote: The rotary has essentially the same losses with altitude as any engine. = There are a lot more considerations than just SL horseposer and weight = but IMHO you will be dissapointed with the performance of any engine at = FL250 if you do not have some sort of forced air induction. If you are = going to bother to go that high on a regular basis, you may as well put = on a turbo to really take advantage of the higher TAS that otherwise = will be out of reach.=20 =20 I fly mine right up to 17.5K whenever I have a reason to do so, but = without the turbo it would take too long to get there and there would be = no net benifit. Normally aspirated engines really suck above 10k. =20 Dave Leonard =20 On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 7:43 PM Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au = > wrote: A question from me - considering we will be using a 4 rotor engine which = will produce around 350hp without a turbo at sea level - is a turbo = really needed for an aircraft that is=20 =20 MTOW 2250 lbs Flying to FL250 =20 or would a 4 rotor/350hp engine be sufficient even with the loss of = power of a normally aspirated engine at altitude? (which I vaguely = recall is less of a power drop for a rotary engine than a piston = engine). =20 =20 =20 On 6/09/2019 1:00 am, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com = wrote: Hi Neil, =20 I started with the stock turbo knowing it wasnt quite rite for the job, = but hey, its came free with my engine. It performed pretty well but = only lasted about 100 hrs. Since then I have been with various = iterataions of the TO4 in a modified stock turbine housing. Those have = performed very well but are not industructable. Prolonged periods at = Peak EGT will melt them too. I have over 600 hrs on my curent turbo = becuase I keep it either rich or lean of peak and the TOT less than = 890C. =20 I recall the exact size of my radiator, 20"x22"x3" rings a bell. It is = all detailed in the archives and on my website. (which is in dire need = of an update). =20 Dave Leonard =20 www.rotaryroster.net =20 On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, 3:21 PM Neil Unger 12348ung@gmail.com = > wrote: Dave, Still trying to get around to fitting a turbo, = possibly next lifetime the way I am going. What turbo did you end up = fitting, and what size cooler? Neil. On 9/5/2019 6:36 AM, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com = wrote: I agree with Marc. A proper single turbo will be more efficient, more = reliable, and much easier to install. Sequential turbos are most = helpful to minimize turbo lag in automotive applications. Stock one or = two-piece apex seals are plenty (even preferred) for modest boost levels = (up to 150 hp per rotor or so).=20 =20 The rotary will not burn less fuel than an 8 cyl aircraft engine at the = same output. It will burn more, but not an excessive amount more. =20 Dave Leonard =20 On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, 1:24 PM Marc Wiese cardmarc@charter.net = > wrote: That does not sound to me like a suitable aircraft configuration.=20 A single turbo would suffice, the controller/wastegate would dial in the = boost needed to maintain SL pressure in the manifold at any condition, = there isn't a reason to 'overboost' the engine. Too complicated and = unnecessary-especially all the hot turbo piping could get very messy. Is the engine builder using ceramic rotor tip seals? Good idea for = boosted engines. MW -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 2:00 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate question... Was just talking to the engine builder and the answer to one question = also answered another - The reason that the engine will have two turbos is that they are set up = sequentially - the first one operates as a turbo normaliser to 500 rpm = above cruise rpm. Once the throttle is opened past that point for = takeoff/climbout the second turbo kicks in to more power. That also explains the fuel efficiency at cruise - only a small turbo is = operating to provide turbo normalisation. Hope this makes sense! On 4/09/2019 11:21 am, Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au = wrote: > Kind of strange how it worked out, but when we made a small change to=20 > the design that gave a tangible benefit we suddenly found ourselves=20 > with room for an extra 40 gallons on top of what we already had - 90=20 > gallons should be enough for range to be governed by bladder size=20 > instead of fuel tank size. > > On 4/09/2019 6:08 am, Charlie England ceengland7@gmail.com = wrote: >> On 9/3/2019 2:31 AM, Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au = wrote: >>> ...if someone has an about 450hp four rotor + turbo engine with=20 >>> effective cooling, and resolves the torsional vibration and=20 >>> resonance issues (which will partly be resolved by having four=20 >>> rotors anyway), are there any other foreseeable likely or possible=20 >>> issues that may need to be overcome to successfully operate it with=20 >>> a good 500hp-rated PSRU like a Ballistic or similar? >>> >> Figuring out where to put the fuel, unless you're talking about a=20 >> time-to-climb record attempt or Reno racer. Any usable a/c at that=20 >> power level may require your own refinery. >> Charlie >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> --=20 >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub:=20 >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> > > > --=20 > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub:=20 > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01D5670B.6FAB5BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A = Mustang P51 style water and oil cooler arrangement would be = ideal=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6? = But, if you are doing a mid engine design with shaft---? Best is = wherever pressure is highest, like base of windscreen, under prop, or = wing inlets such as the Mosquito bomber (and others) = had.

MW

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft
Sent: = Sunday, September 08, 2019 7:09 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate = question...

 

We are designing a new = airframe, everyone says that we are mad designing a new airframe and = developing a "new" engine for it, but I think by doing it that = way we have the chance to design an airframe that has the cooling ducts = etc needed for the rotary, whereas previously rotaries have been placed = in existing airframes and then tried to cool = them.

 

 

On 9/09/2019 2:42 am, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com = wrote:

That is is going to be awesome.  What airframe is = it going in?

 

Dave Leonard.

 

On = Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 8:53 AM Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

The rotary has essentially the same losses with = altitude as any engine.  There are a lot more considerations than = just SL horseposer and weight but IMHO you will be dissapointed with the = performance of any engine at FL250 if you do not have some sort of = forced air induction.  If you are going to bother to go that high = on a regular basis, you may as well put on a turbo to really take = advantage of the higher TAS that otherwise will be out of reach. =

 

I = fly mine right up to 17.5K whenever I have a reason to do so, but = without the turbo it would take too long to get there and there would be = no net benifit.  Normally aspirated engines really suck above = 10k.

 

Dave Leonard

 

On = Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 7:43 PM Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> = wrote:

A question from me - considering we will be using a 4 = rotor engine which will produce around 350hp without a turbo at sea = level - is a turbo really needed for an aircraft that is =

 

MTOW 2250 lbs

Flying to FL250

 

or would a 4 rotor/350hp engine be sufficient even = with the loss of power of a normally aspirated engine at altitude? = (which I vaguely recall is less of a power drop for a rotary engine than = a piston engine).

 

 

 

On 6/09/2019 1:00 am, David Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com = wrote:

Hi Neil,

 

I = started with the stock turbo knowing it wasnt quite rite for the job, = but hey, its came free with my engine.  It performed pretty well = but only lasted about 100 hrs.  Since then I have been with various = iterataions of the TO4 in a modified stock turbine housing.  Those = have performed very well but are not industructable.  Prolonged = periods at Peak EGT will melt them too.  I have over 600 hrs on my = curent turbo becuase I keep it either rich or lean of peak and the TOT = less than 890C.

 

I = recall the exact size of my radiator, 20"x22"x3"  = rings a bell.  It is all detailed in the archives and on my = website. (which is in dire need of an = update).

 

Dave Leonard

 

www.rotaryroster.net

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, 3:21 PM Neil Unger 12348ung@gmail.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> = wrote:

Dave,

=             &= nbsp;     Still trying to get around to fitting a = turbo, possibly next lifetime the way I am going.  What turbo did = you end up fitting, and what size cooler?   = Neil.

On 9/5/2019 6:36 AM, David = Leonard wdleonard@gmail.com = wrote:

I agree with Marc.  A proper single turbo will be = more efficient, more reliable, and much easier to install.  = Sequential turbos are most helpful to minimize turbo lag in automotive = applications.  Stock one or two-piece apex seals are plenty (even = preferred) for modest boost levels (up to 150 hp per rotor or so). =

 

The rotary will not burn less fuel than an 8 cyl = aircraft engine at the same output.  It will burn more, but not an = excessive amount more.

 

Dave Leonard

 

On = Wed, Sep 4, 2019, 1:24 PM Marc Wiese cardmarc@charter.net <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> = wrote:

That does = not sound to me like a suitable aircraft configuration.
A single = turbo would suffice, the controller/wastegate would dial in the boost = needed to maintain SL pressure in the manifold at any condition, there = isn't a reason to 'overboost' the engine. Too complicated and = unnecessary-especially all the hot turbo piping could get very = messy.
Is the engine builder using ceramic rotor tip seals? Good idea = for boosted engines.
MW

-----Original Message-----
From: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 2:00 = AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate question...

Was just talking to the = engine builder and the answer to one question also answered another = -

The reason that the engine will have two turbos is that they = are set up sequentially - the first one operates as a turbo normaliser = to 500 rpm above cruise rpm.  Once the throttle is opened past that = point for takeoff/climbout the second turbo kicks in to more = power.

That also explains the fuel efficiency at cruise - only a = small turbo is operating to provide turbo normalisation.  Hope this = makes sense!



On 4/09/2019 11:21 am, Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au wrote:
> Kind of = strange how it worked out, but when we made a small change to
> = the design that gave a tangible benefit we suddenly found ourselves =
> with room for an extra 40 gallons on top of what we already had = - 90
> gallons should be enough for range to be governed by = bladder size
> instead of fuel tank size.
>
> On = 4/09/2019 6:08 am, Charlie England ceengland7@gmail.com wrote:
>> On = 9/3/2019 2:31 AM, Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au wrote:
>>> = ...if someone has an about 450hp four rotor + turbo engine with =
>>> effective cooling, and resolves the torsional vibration = and
>>> resonance issues (which will partly be resolved by = having four
>>> rotors anyway), are there any other = foreseeable likely or possible
>>> issues that may need to = be overcome to successfully operate it with
>>> a good = 500hp-rated PSRU like a Ballistic or = similar?
>>>
>> Figuring out where to put the fuel, = unless you're talking about a
>> time-to-climb record attempt = or Reno racer. Any usable a/c at that
>> power level may = require your own refinery.
>> = Charlie
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email = has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>= >
>> --
>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Archive and = UnSub:
>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.h= tml
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> = Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and = UnSub:
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.h= tml
>
>


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.h= tml


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.h= tml

=

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_00C8_01D5670B.6FAB5BE0--