Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #42277
From: <WRJJRS@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Request (for those already flying...)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 01:57:13 EDT
To: <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
David,
I consider all these excellent comments and I like your reasoning. It would be nice to see what you could get with even a better fixed pitch prop match. Something about fuel burn. I have mentioned this repeatedly in several of the forums on Vansairforce.net too, and that is the higher the output the better the rotary looks efficiency wise. Mistral's new numbers using their high-end EMS are competitive, in fact just plain good when using lean of peak operation. This is all part of using an engine that is an infant compared to the piston engine. We are still learning a lot. Thanks for your participation, from all of us that aren't ready yet.
Bill Jepson
 
In a message dated 4/7/2008 5:02:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, wdleonard@gmail.com writes:
There is not doubt that I would have been at least several knots faster with a C/S prop.  I could even pick up a couple knots average time with a little less pitch in my current prop.  A two-bladed prop would have improved efficiency somewhat as well.  But that would have been well offset by increased fuel burn.

I have gotten several comments from the guys in the local group commenting on how surprised they were were at how well the rotary did in terms of fuel burn.  I have to admit that I was rather surprised as well.  I think that the major objection to the rotary is often the excess fuel consumption and not the thought that it can't make enough power.  So in that sense, I think I did more for the reputation by being modest in both consumption and speed rather than going really fast and burning a lot of fuel.

Most people also realize that I was also disadvantaged by the fixed pitch and 3-bladed prop and are impressed that I still essentially tied for second among the side-by-side aircraft.

The other important reason for keeping a fixed pitch prop is clearly the cost.  Not just from my pocket book, but to make a statement as well.  If we are using alternative engines to save on the exorbitant costs of certified engines, then it does not make much sense to spend thousands on the prop.

My engine/prop package cost at least $15k less than anyone else in the race and by using MOGAS my fuel costs were less than anyone who was going for speed.  That is what is cool!

Though, I must admit, it would always be nice to be the "Fastest Mother F'er"  :-)
--
David Leonard

Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
 




Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster