Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2584246 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:16:37 -0400 Received: from nc.rr.com (cpe-024-211-183-088.nc.rr.com [24.211.183.88]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h8IECmpM005783 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F69BC43.6020503@nc.rr.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:08:03 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo performance? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote: > I really DO want to keep the turbo, but only if I feel safe running it > hard enough to get some advantage out of it. > That is the correct attitude, Rusty. I like the rotary, becuase it is simple. All other things being equal, simple is usually hold out longer than complex. If you have to build a Rube Goldberg contraption for anything less that double the power, then it just isn't worth it. Ask yourself this question. With all the added complexity (turbo, extra cooling, control systems), would it be simpler and lighter just to add a rotor and go with a 20B? -- ----Because I can---- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ "Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience. Veeduber