|
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 -----
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thanks
Gonzalo.
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?
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. Giménez Celis <gonza@gimenez.cl>
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
Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Sábado, 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. Giménez 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
|