X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3858282 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:14:12 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (sv1-1.per.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.68]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F96317380C for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:13:33 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C944BEC078 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:13:29 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <29CB54A83C1F41E4BEA5B5E57AE4046A@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:13:34 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA3883.5AD43B90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090917-0, 09/17/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA3883.5AD43B90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, You won't get any more HP out of a Renesis than you will with a RX7. The = only hp advantage you get with the renesis is the tuned inlet manifold, = which we remove. Although the higher compression rotor will give a = little extra hp. There are a lot of PP being done for aviation but not necessarily within = this discussion group - I have noticed that. I do agree it is another complexity to overcome. However I do have some suggestions for those considering it. BTW Mazda did provide PP housings - primarily for racing, I believe. = They don't idle too well. George ( down under) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bill Bradburry=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 4:28 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Gonzalo, A lot of people talk about peripheral porting rotaries but nobody is = doing it with a rotary that they plan to fly behind. If it was such a = good thing, Mazda would be P-Porting their cars. Instead they are going = away even from the peripheral port for the exhaust with the Renesis. =20 If 200 HP will do it for you the Renesis is the way to go. This = process of putting an alternative engine in a plane is hard enough = without violating the KISS principle. Put in a Renesis, no turbo, no P-Port. Bill B =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 5:57 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 Gonzalo, I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't think it = did. All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. You can put Renesis rotors into RX7's but not the other way around. = The RX8 rotors are a high compression rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors, the = RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1 compression. =20 I guess you could use a turbo for altitude normalizing, but great care = would have to used, I can't say I would recommend it. Consider peripheral ported RX7 engine with 44mm inlets. George (down under) In Chile there are only a few Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars = here, but not too many rotaries, and there are no enthusiasts of the = wankel engine, so for support and parts, I'll have to go to the U.S. = anyway. =20 If I chose and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is = better, the 2004 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or = 93-95 as you said? Can the "modern" renesis be use with a turbo? =20 Thanks =20 Gonzalo.=20 =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of William Wilson Sent: Domingo, 23 de Agosto de 2009 1:29 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 With only a couple of exceptions the two- and three- rotor engines = take the same parts. Only the "big" center housing and the eccentric = shaft are really special for the 3-rotor engine. Luckily, these don't = usually need to be replaced. Of course, the manifolds, fuel injection = and most of the electronics are unique but you won't use the stock parts = anyway. Most everything else is either the same as, or interchangeable = with, the '89-'91 or '93-'95 13B turbo. Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or not you can = get *those* parts. There is plenty of support in the U.S. for rotary = engines, since Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to = bringing in Japan-market parts. Is there such support in Chile? It is = tough enough to build a plane without having to build your own engine = too. 2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis Well, actually is not that bad. There are a couple of runways 3000 = ft long, and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from sea level up to 7500 ft, = but I don't plan to go there often, and if I do, the runway is very long. = I want to have a little more power just in case. I think the 200 HP is = enough, right? Also, what about the parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are = much more available than for the 20B... Thanks!! Gonzalo -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Dave Sent: S=E1bado, 22 de Agosto de 2009 17:08 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none of = the very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble free installations. I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and both have had more than = one turbo failure in the process of finding what works. I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its turbo version. What sort of runway length and density altitude are we talking = about, where you intend to operate? Dave Thomas Mann wrote: > > A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp at 291 LBS (132 KGS) > > A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149 KGS) > > A three rotor engine can produce 300hp at 390 LBS (177 KGS) > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis > *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:05 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or two? > > Hi group. As I told in previous questions, I'm building a Cozy MK = IV, > and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 and = 250 > HP, since in Chile we don't have such long runways like in the = U.S. > and is a pretty mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is > better, a three or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? = Can > I use a turbo in a two rotor engine without affecting reliability = and > weight? Etc. > > Thanks. > > Gonzalo > > Chile > -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA3883.5AD43B90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill,
You won't get any more HP out of a = Renesis than you=20 will with a RX7. The only hp advantage you get with the renesis is the = tuned=20 inlet manifold, which we remove. Although the higher compression rotor = will give=20 a little extra hp.
 
There are a lot of PP being done for=20 aviation but not necessarily within this discussion group - I = have=20 noticed that.
I do agree it is another complexity to=20 overcome.
 
However I do have some suggestions for = those=20 considering it.
BTW Mazda did provide PP housings - = primarily for=20 racing, I believe. They don't idle too well.
George ( down under)
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Bill=20 Bradburry
Sent: Monday, September 07, = 2009 4:28=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three = or=20 two?

Gonzalo,

A lot of = people talk=20 about peripheral porting rotaries but nobody is doing it with a rotary = that=20 they plan to fly behind.  If it was such a good thing, Mazda = would be=20 P-Porting their cars.  Instead they are going away even from the=20 peripheral port for the exhaust with the Renesis. =20

If 200 HP = will do it=20 for you the Renesis is the way to go.  This process of putting an = alternative engine in a plane is hard enough without violating the = KISS=20 principle.

Put in a = Renesis, no=20 turbo, no P-Port.

Bill=20 B

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 = 5:57=20 PM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three = or=20 two?

 

Gonzalo,

I don't know if the = Renesis has a=20 turbo version, I didn't think it did. All turbo 13B's require low = compression rotors.

You can put Renesis = rotors into=20 RX7's but not the other way around. The RX8 rotors are a high = compression=20 rotor, higher than Rx7 rotors, the RX8 (Renesis) are 10:1=20 compression.

 

I guess you could use a = turbo for=20 altitude normalizing, but great care would have to used, I can't say I = would=20 recommend it.

Consider peripheral = ported RX7=20 engine with 44mm inlets.

George (down=20 under)

In=20 Chile there are only a = few=20 Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars here, but not too many rotaries, = and=20 there are no enthusiasts of the wankel engine,  so for support = and=20 parts, I=92ll have to go to the U.S.=20 anyway.

 

If I = chose and=20 engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is better, the 2004 = renesis for=20 example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or 93-95 as you said? Can = the=20 =93modern=94 renesis be use with a = turbo?

 

Thanks

 

Gonzalo.=20

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Domingo, 23 de Agosto = de 2009=20 1:29
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or=20 two?

 

With only a couple of = exceptions the=20 two- and three- rotor engines take the same parts.  Only the = "big"=20 center housing and the eccentric shaft are really special for the = 3-rotor=20 engine.  Luckily, these don't usually need to be = replaced.  Of=20 course, the manifolds, fuel injection and most of the electronics = are unique=20 but you won't use the stock parts anyway.  Most everything else = is=20 either the same as, or interchangeable with, the '89-'91 or '93-'95 = 13B=20 turbo.

Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or = not you=20 can get *those* parts.  There is plenty of support in the=20 U.S. for rotary = engines, since=20 Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to bringing in = Japan-market=20 parts.  Is there such support in Chile? =20 It is tough enough to build a plane without having to build your own = engine=20 too.

2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis = <gonza@gimenez.cl>

Well, actually is not that bad. There are = a couple=20 of runways 3000 ft long,
and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies = from sea=20 level up to 7500 ft, but I
don't plan to go there often, and if I = do, the=20 runway is very long. I want
to have a little more power just in = case. I=20 think the 200 HP is enough,
right?

Also, what about the = parts, it=20 seems that the two rotor parts are much more
available than for = the=20 20B...

Thanks!!

Gonzalo


-----Original Message-----
From:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 On

Behalf Of Dave
Sent: S=E1bado, 22 de = Agosto de 2009=20 17:08
To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or = two?

While=20 I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none of = the
very few=20 currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble=20 free
installations.

I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, = and=20 both have had more than one
turbo failure in the process of = finding what=20 works.

I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its = turbo=20 version.

What sort of runway length and density altitude are = we=20 talking about,
where you intend to operate?
Dave

Thomas = Mann=20 wrote:
>
> A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp at = 291 LBS=20 (132 KGS)
>
> A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp = at 328=20 LBS (149 KGS)
>
> A three rotor engine can produce 300hp = at 390=20 LBS (177 KGS)
>
> *From:* Rotary=20 motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
>=20 *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Gim=E9nez Celis
> *Sent:* Saturday, = August 22,=20 2009 3:05 PM
> *To:* Rotary motors = in=20 aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or=20 two?
>
> Hi group. As I told in previous questions, = I=92m building=20 a Cozy MK IV,
> and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to = have=20 between 200 and 250
> HP, since in Chile we don=92t have such long = runways like in=20 the U.S.
> and is a = pretty=20 mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is
> better, a = three or=20 two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? Can
> I use a = turbo in=20 a two rotor engine without affecting reliability and
> weight? = Etc=85
>
> Thanks.
>
> = Gonzalo
>
>=20 Chile
>


--<= BR>Homepage:=20  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l


--
Homepage:=20  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: =   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA3883.5AD43B90--