Return-Path: Received: from access.aic-fl.com ([204.49.76.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 793556 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:48:41 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.49.76.2; envelope-from=unicorn@gdsys.net Received: from b9k4u9 (unverified [204.49.76.218]) by access.aic-fl.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:42:36 -0600 Message-ID: <002701c52908$e53f3850$da4c31cc@b9k4u9> From: "Richard Sohn" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] more peripheral port thoughts Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:44:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01C528C5.D3EA6770" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C528C5.D3EA6770 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jesse, this is because I believe in the 8kRPM limit for unmodified engine = parts, and my goal is a practical engine without applying exotic = technologies(could not afford it anyway). The reason for the low prop = RPM is the airplane I am flying now, and which I am planing to use as a = test bed. It is an AVID Heavy Hauler with a 100hp Soob on a 2.62:1 Rotax = C driving a 75" 3blade Powerfin. This is a setup I am measuring against. = By the way performance is excellent. The G40 weight is 26lb. Abusing it? I don't know. All I know is that I = have been abusing the ROTAX for years without a problem. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: jesse farr=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 3:28 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] more peripheral port thoughts Richard: Why cut off rotary rpms at 7500 ? 8300 at 3.3:1 would make a = nice 2500 prop rpm package and 9000 would give you more range than any = old lycoming. And, the idea of two 38 mm mikunis sure sounds like a = nice way to eliminate a lot of problems. How much does the hirth g40 = weigh ? Wonder how much more than 140 it would take ? jofarr, soddy tn ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C528C5.D3EA6770 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jesse,
 
this is because I believe in the 8kRPM limit for unmodified engine = parts,=20 and my goal is a practical engine without applying exotic = technologies(could not=20 afford it anyway). The reason for the low prop RPM is the airplane I am = flying=20 now, and which I am planing to use as a test bed. It is an AVID Heavy = Hauler=20 with a 100hp Soob on a 2.62:1 Rotax C driving a 75" 3blade Powerfin. = This is a=20 setup I am measuring against. By the way performance is excellent.
The G40 weight is 26lb. Abusing it? I don't know. All I know is = that I have=20 been abusing the ROTAX for years without a problem.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 jesse = farr=20
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 = 3:28=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] more = peripheral port=20 thoughts

Richard: Why cut off rotary rpms at 7500 ? 8300 at 3.3:1 would = make a=20 nice 2500 prop rpm package and 9000 would give you more range than any = old=20 lycoming.  And, the idea of two 38 mm mikunis sure sounds like=20 a nice way to eliminate a lot of problems. How much does the = hirth g40=20 weigh ? Wonder how much more than 140 it would take ?
jofarr, soddy tn
 
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C528C5.D3EA6770--