Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 3112663 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:28:39 -0500 Received: from edward (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i2MDSbs2014936 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:28:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002f01c41011$94f8fa90$2402a8c0@edward> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C drive testing Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:28:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C40FE7.ABF81200" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C40FE7.ABF81200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sounds great thus far, Tracy Imagine having so much thrust that you can't hold the aircraft still = for maximum static, must be tough {:>). If you initial observations = hold regarding fuel consumption and performance, then I predict the 2.85 = will soon become the standard. If the fuel burn/performance is a wash = then only engine wear from higher rpm might be a factor, but since the = rotary seems to only have no/ minimum wear in any case, that probably = will not be a significant factor. So how much are you given for 2.17:1 trade ins? Seriously, will the B = model mounting plate accommodate the C model gear box housing (looks = like you mount it the same way). I presume it would not be so simple as = swapping out the internals as I am certain the internal mounting/housing = is different in the two. Third, in case you consider getting rid of = that old performance prop, put me on top of your list. Ed Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tracy Crook=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 9:12 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Data? Was : Renesis & RD-1C drive testing Hi Ed, Wish I had more carefully documented fuel burn vs airspeed on the -B = drive & old prop. But from the few well documented points that I have, = it looks about the same at 6.0 GPH (sea level) IAS, 143 - 148 depending = on OAT, humidity, etc (its amazing how much conditions affect things). = This is the only point I've had a chance to compare so far. I have not = built the prop blade cuffs that I feel will be necessary to get best = performance from this combination. Clark at Performance Props was very = honest about the difficulty in getting the proper pitch at the blade = root (out to ~ 3" past the 13" dia. spinner) with pitch this high. This = being the case, I'm very happy with the results so far. =20 Other conclusions are that anything less than 74" L prop is a waste on = the -C drive. More would be better but that's as long as the -4 prop = clearance would allow. =20 I can't measure static rpm (plane wants to skid on grass and/or nose = over) but climb RPM is at 6200 at 120 mph (up from about 5200 with -B = drive) and VSI is pegged (hard!). Only did very brief test of WOT in = level flight and engine hit 7050 rpm. IAS was still climbing at 215 = mph. Oil cooling has suffered due to stalled air around prop hub and = reversed spiral of airflow due to RH prop. Erased several years of = tweaking inlet shapes. Most unexpected finding so far is the radically improved glide at idle = setting. Have no clue why. Would have expected worse instead of = better. Tracy Hi Tracy, Experimentation can sure get exciting quickly, that's for sure. = So here we have the first successful cross-runway take off at Shady = Bend, congratulations! I am interested in your static rpm with the 13B engine, big prop = and 2.85 drive, so I can calculate an approximation of your HP on take = off - might be interesting to see how it stacks up against the old set = up. Later on of course interested in your fuel burn at same indicated = airspeeds and altitudes for a comparison with your old set up. Best Regards Ed =20 Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C40FE7.ABF81200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sounds great thus far, Tracy
 
    Imagine having so much thrust = that you=20 can't hold the aircraft still for maximum static, must be tough = {:>). =20 If you initial observations hold regarding fuel consumption and = performance,=20 then I predict the 2.85 will soon become the standard.  If the fuel = burn/performance is a wash then only engine wear from higher rpm might = be a=20 factor, but since the rotary seems to only have no/ minimum wear in = any=20 case, that probably will not be a significant factor.
 
  So how much are you given for 2.17:1 = trade=20 ins?  Seriously, will the B model mounting plate accommodate the C = model=20 gear box housing (looks like you mount it the same way).  I presume = it=20 would not be so simple as swapping out the internals as I am certain the = internal mounting/housing is different in the two.   Third, in = case=20 you consider getting rid of that old performance prop, put me on top of = your=20 list.
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tracy = Crook
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 = 9:12=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Data? = Was :=20 Renesis & RD-1C drive testing

Hi Ed,
Wish I had more carefully documented fuel burn vs airspeed on the = -B=20 drive & old prop.  But from the few well documented points = that I=20 have, it looks about the same at 6.0 GPH (sea level) IAS, 143 - 148 = depending=20 on OAT, humidity, etc (its amazing how much conditions affect = things). =20 This is the only point I've had a chance to compare so far.  I = have not=20 built the prop blade cuffs that I feel will be necessary to get best=20 performance from this combination.  Clark at Performance Props = was very=20 honest about the difficulty in getting the proper pitch at = the blade=20 root (out to ~ 3" past the 13" dia. spinner) with pitch this = high. =20 This being the case, I'm very happy with the results so far.  =
 
Other conclusions are that anything less than 74" L prop is a = waste on=20 the -C drive.  More would be better but that's as long as the -4 = prop=20 clearance would allow. 
 
I can't measure static rpm (plane wants to skid on grass and/or = nose=20 over) but climb RPM is at 6200 at 120 mph (up from about 5200 with -B = drive)=20 and VSI is pegged (hard!).  Only did very brief test of WOT in = level=20 flight and engine hit 7050 rpm.  IAS was still climbing at 215 = mph. =20 Oil cooling has suffered due to stalled air around prop hub and = reversed=20 spiral of airflow due to RH prop.  Erased several years of = tweaking inlet=20 shapes.
 
Most unexpected finding so far is the radically improved glide at = idle=20 setting.  Have no clue why.  Would have expected worse = instead of=20 better.
 
Tracy
 
 
Hi Tracy,
 
    Experimentation can sure = get=20 exciting quickly, that's for sure.  So here we have the first=20 successful cross-runway take off at Shady Bend,=20 congratulations!
 
 I am interested in your static rpm = with=20 the 13B engine, big prop and 2.85 drive, so I can calculate an=20 approximation of your HP on take off - might be interesting to see = how it=20 stacks up against the old set up.  Later on of course = interested in=20 your fuel burn at same indicated airspeeds = and altitudes for a=20 comparison with your old set up.
 
Best Regards
 
Ed
  
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, = NC
 
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C40FE7.ABF81200--