Return-Path: Received: from imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2583527 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:11:54 -0400 Received: from TOSHIBAjhr ([209.214.14.66]) by imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with SMTP id <20030918001150.EZWG17943.imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net@TOSHIBAjhr> for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:11:50 -0400 From: "John Slade" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] turbo performance? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:11:48 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C37D57.ECA292D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C37D57.ECA292D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message> One of the figures that I gave them was for 6300 rpm, at 3 psi of boost (36 inches since I'm > at sea level). I have a feeling they're going to tell me that I was making something like 130 HP. > If so, the turbo's history. Rusty, Arn't you jumping the gun a little here? It's true that you're providing us all with a useful list of things to avoid, and lots of good wholesome entertainment, but you're also "experimenting" in the true sense of experimental. It caught my attention when Ed mentioned that he was on his fifth intake, and Tracy said he didn't love his rotary until 80 hours. Perhaps you're giving up too early on this. Lets take a step back for a moment. Forget about altitude. On the ground, and for say the first 3000 feet where you'll be doing most of your climbing, its a known fact that the turbo 13B produces considerably more horses than the NA version. The cars, running at the same altitude, don't blow their turbos and engines to bits, even at much higher RPM than you're doing. So whats the difference? Why, at these altitudes, should you're engine perform worse than the one in a car? Regards, John Slade Cozy IV (not keen to loose the flag bearer) ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C37D57.ECA292D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
> One of the figures that I = gave them=20 was for 6300 rpm, at 3 psi of boost (36 inches since I'm  
> at sea  level).  I have a feeling they're going = to tell me=20 that I was making something like 130 HP.   
> If so, the turbo's=20 history.   
Rusty, 
Arn't you jumping the gun a little here? =  It's=20 true that you're providing us all with a useful list of things to avoid, = and=20 lots of good wholesome entertainment, but you're also "experimenting" in = the=20 true sense of experimental. It caught my attention when Ed mentioned = that he was=20 on his fifth intake, and Tracy said he didn't love his rotary until 80 = hours.=20 Perhaps you're giving up too early on this.
 
Lets take a step back for a moment. Forget = about=20 altitude. On the ground, and for say the first 3000 feet where you'll be = doing most of your climbing, its a known fact that the turbo 13B = produces=20 considerably more horses than the NA version. The cars, running at the = same=20 altitude, don't blow their turbos and engines to bits, even at much = higher RPM=20 than you're doing. So whats the difference? Why, at these altitudes, = should=20 you're engine perform worse than the one in a car?=20
 
Regards,
John Slade
Cozy IV (not keen to loose the=20 flag bearer)
 
 
 
  ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C37D57.ECA292D0--