Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2584356 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:34:13 -0400 Received: from rad ([68.212.12.251]) by imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with ESMTP id <20030918153413.EEUC1821.imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:34:13 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo performance? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:34:12 -0500 Message-ID: <002f01c37dfa$4fdd6030$0201a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01C37DD0.67075830" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C37DD0.67075830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? =20 If I were building a plane that was meant to have more power and weight = than an O-320, I would go with a 20B over a turbo 13B. As the old saying = goes, there's no substitute for cubic inches. In my case, I knew all along = that I might have to remove the turbo if the weight and balance didn't come out = OK, and it's far easier to remove a turbo, than an extra rotor. I also = never planned to push the power limit of the turbo 13B, since the plane isn't meant to handle it. =20 =20 If I could go back in time about 6 months, knowing what I know now = (weight, required boost, etc), I would not have installed the turbo. I would = have looked harder at the 2.85 gear option though. There's plenty of power = in the 13B if you're willing to turn the rpms, and frankly, I believe it's safer to turn the rpms, than to use a bunch of boost. =20 =20 Tracy- when you get the bugs worked out of the 2.85 gear set, will it be possible to convert an RD-1B to an RD-1C? I'm assuming that all the expensive parts would have to be changed, so it would likely not be cost effective, but as you know, I "have" to ask :-) =20 Thanks, Rusty (just don't know)=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C37DD0.67075830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Ask yourself this question.  With all the added = complexity=20 (turbo, extra
cooling, control systems), would it be simpler and = lighter just=20 to add a
rotor and go with a 20B?

 
If I were building a plane that = was meant to=20 have more power and weight than an O-320, I would go with a 20B = over a=20 turbo 13B.  As the old saying goes, there's no substitute for cubic = inches.  In my case, I knew all along that I might have to remove = the turbo=20 if the weight and balance didn't come out OK, and it's far easier to = remove a=20 turbo, than an extra rotor.  I also never planned to push the power = limit=20 of the turbo 13B, since the plane isn't meant to handle it.  =
 
If I could go back in time about = 6 months,=20 knowing what I know now (weight, required boost, etc),  I would not = have=20 installed the turbo.  I would have looked harder at the = 2.85 gear=20 option though.  There's plenty of power in the 13B if you're = willing to=20 turn the rpms, and frankly, I believe it's safer to turn the rpms, than = to use a=20 bunch of boost. 
 
Tracy- when you get the bugs = worked out of=20 the 2.85 gear set, will it be possible to convert an RD-1B to=20 an RD-1C?  I'm assuming that all the expensive parts would = have to be=20 changed, so it would likely not be cost effective, but as you know, I = "have" to=20 ask :-)
 
Thanks,
Rusty (just don't = know) 


------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C37DD0.67075830--