X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [201.225.225.169] (HELO cwpanama.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 974740 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:52:53 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=201.225.225.169; envelope-from=rijakits@cwpanama.net Received: from [201.224.93.110] (HELO usuarioq3efog0) by frontend3.cwpanama.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with SMTP id 58049786 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:59:28 -0500 Message-ID: <00d001c62cd8$5f7fffe0$6e5de0c9@usuarioq3efog0> From: "rijakits" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Aircraft HP?? Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 6 port? Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:52:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C62CAE.766E7580" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C62CAE.766E7580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Also look at the BSFC numbers: You will get good info on Mistral's engines all the way to 100% Lyc doesn't publish anything above 65% ( or 60%), what they call/want Cruisepower at.... I guess lots of fuel blowing out unburned for cooling above 65%..... Thomas J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Anderson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:13 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Aircraft HP?? Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 6 port? Interesting indeed! I took the 360 CID displacement of a 180 HP Lycoming and calculated the airflow (assuming 100% VE which is doubtful) at 2700 rpm and I get 281 CFM. That's just a hair more than a 13B at 6000 rpm which gives 277 CFM which gives a 160HP (standard day at sea level) . Since the stock aircraft engine does not have anymore compression than the rotary and since we can wind our engines much higher than 6000 rpm, I would say this supports Lynn's comment about: 1. aircraft engines not producing ( in normal operation) the power we all supposed they did. 2. That the rotary can (does not mean all do) produce more HP than the stock Lycoming 320-360. Another point is Tracy Crook's max performance 13B (old and new) will out run any stock 360 with breath to spare. I understand Rusty has a 360 for sale, cheap {:>) Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Lehanover@aol.com To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:55 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 6 port? In a message dated 2/8/2006 9:06:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, russell.duffy@gmail.com writes: Hi Lynn, You're right that I would truly be surprised IF this were true. I don't buy it though. Got any evidence to support this statement? Cheers, Rusty (180+ HP Lyclone on the way) There is ample evidence. After a thousand or so hours in the dyno room, you can develop a feel for such things. Look at the ID of the carb or TB on the 180. How many CFM? Enough to support the advertised HP? At what rpm is that HP rating? Can't get a dyno sheet for your new engine? And if you could, what is the date on that sheet? Is it for your engine, or for an engine built years ago? Typical of the breed is a HP rating at 3,200 to 3,400 RPM (from years ago) and with a prop on them they won't turn up 2,700 on the ground. And only get to the rated power RPM in a dive. Hardly usable power. If you get behind one of the Black Max type rebuilds it feels like a rocket, because it is at or very close to its (Factory) advertised HP. And they do that with porting to match the flow rates of the cast heads. And you cannot put your finger in the ring end gaps. If you can find a list of torque outputs for a list of aircraft engines, compare them to the rotary driving through a 2.85:1 reduction box. Now you see that the rotary does very well against the airplane engine. Look at it backwards and compare the swept volume of the two engines at any prop RPM. Since the rotary does outrun most of the 160 HP powered planes, would you assume that those rotaries have way more than 160 HP? Or, perhaps the 160s had a bit less. I can get 3+ HP per cubic inch, would that make a great Lycoming or what? Take off in a Cessna 150. Alone, so it won't be over gross. Did that feel like 150HP? Did it feel more like 79HP? Why yes it did. Lynn E. Hanover ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C62CAE.766E7580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Also look at the BSFC numbers:
 
You will get good info on Mistral's engines all the = way to=20 100%
Lyc doesn't publish anything above 65% ( or 60%), = what they=20 call/want Cruisepower at....
I guess lots of fuel blowing out unburned for = cooling above=20 65%.....
 
 
Thomas J.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, = 2006 12:13=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Aircraft = HP?? Re:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: 6 port?

Interesting indeed!
 
I took the 360 CID displacement of a 180 HP = Lycoming and=20 calculated the airflow (assuming 100% VE which is doubtful) at 2700 = rpm and I=20 get 281 CFM.  That's just a hair more than a 13B at 6000 rpm = which gives=20 277 CFM which gives a 160HP (standard day at sea level) .  =
 
Since the stock aircraft engine does not have = anymore=20 compression than the rotary and since we can wind our engines much = higher than=20 6000 rpm,  I would say this supports Lynn's comment = about:
 
1. aircraft engines not producing ( in = normal=20 operation) the power  we all supposed they did.
 
2.  That the rotary can (does not mean = all do)=20 produce more HP than the stock Lycoming 320-360. 
 
Another point is Tracy Crook's max performance 13B = (old and=20 new) will out run any stock 360 with breath to spare.
 
I understand Rusty has a 360 for sale, cheap=20 {:>)
 
 
Ed
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Lehanover@aol.com
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, = 2006 9:55=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 6 = port?

In a message dated 2/8/2006 9:06:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, = russell.duffy@gmail.com=20 writes:
Hi Lynn,
 
You're right that I would truly be = surprised IF this=20 were true.  I don't buy it though.  Got any = evidence to=20 support this statement? 
 
Cheers,
Rusty (180+ HP Lyclone on the=20 = way)   
There is ample evidence. After a thousand or so hours in the = dyno room,=20 you can develop a feel for such things. Look at the ID of the = carb or=20 TB on the 180. How many CFM? Enough to support the advertised HP? At = what=20 rpm is that HP rating? Can't get a dyno sheet for your new engine? = And if=20 you could, what is the date on that sheet? Is it for your engine, or = for an=20 engine built years ago?  
 
Typical of the breed is a HP rating at 3,200 to 3,400 RPM (from = years=20 ago) and with a prop on them they won't turn up 2,700 on the ground. = And=20 only get to the rated power RPM in a dive. Hardly usable power. If = you=20 get behind one of the Black Max type rebuilds it feels like a = rocket,=20 because it is at or very close to its (Factory) advertised HP. And = they do=20 that with porting to match the flow rates of the cast heads. And you = cannot=20 put your finger in the ring end gaps.
 
If you can find a list of torque outputs for a list of aircraft = engines, compare them to the rotary driving through a 2.85:1 = reduction box.=20 Now you see that the rotary does very well against the airplane = engine. Look=20 at it backwards and compare the swept volume of the two engines at = any prop=20 RPM. Since the rotary does outrun most of the 160 HP powered planes, = would=20 you assume that those rotaries have way more than 160 HP? Or, = perhaps=20 the 160s had a bit less.  I can get 3+ HP per cubic inch, would = that=20 make a great Lycoming or what?
 
Take off in a Cessna 150. Alone, so it won't be over gross. Did = that=20 feel like 150HP?
Did it feel more like 79HP? Why yes it did.   
 
Lynn E. = Hanover 
------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C62CAE.766E7580--