|
Group,
An after thought...........Mark Steitle mentioned in a recent post that he was going
to build a "P" port 20B for his "Lancair" (guess 275+ hp from the current 20B just
is not enough )........<:)...............Jump in here Mark and tell us if you have settled
on a method to secure and seal the rotor housing inserts ??...........
--
Kelly Troyer
"Dyke Delta"_13B ROTARY Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"Mistral"_Backplate/Oil Manifold
-------------- Original message from "Kelly Troyer" <keltro@att.net>: --------------
George,
Interesting exchange on this subject again..............Jerry Hey of this group is/was doing
some "P" ports utilizing an aluminum insert.........I think a sealant was then used for the rest
of the cavity...........Have not heard from Jerry for a while (jump in here if you are listening
Jerry) but photos looked good.......Do you have access to any photos from "Down Under"
George showing the aluminum inserts and/or the same welded in place ??.............
--
Kelly Troyer
"Dyke Delta"_13B ROTARY Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"Mistral"_Backplate/Oil Manifold
-------------- Original message from "George Lendich" <lendich@aanet.com.au>: --------------
Bill,
Good on Ya! I'm a bit behind my e-mails BTW.
I have a great solution for the PP problems of leaking coolant. I notice that PL advocates welding to the inner rotor steel liner - however not much to weld to, and then pressurizes the resin filler.
Now this is not my idea but it sis working well locally and that is to weld a Al tube to the inner Al housing - weld it rights around and then fill the remainder with resin. Seems to work much better than what was done previously and ahs held up in well in racing applications.
George ( down under)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 5:06 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?
Gonzalo,
Sorry to be contrary, but in my opinion the ONLY way to go for a flying rotary is P-port. All of the original Power Sport engines (the Everette Hatch P.S.) ran P-ports. The manifolding for a P-port engine is vastly easier. In fact Hatch and Steve Beckham built several engines with P-ports that even ran reverse rotation so they could get proper propeller rotation with some gearboxes. You can even P-port an Renesis and it still works. The reason that Mazda isn't P-porting their race cars has nothing to do with if P-porting is better, it is racing organizations requirements. The reason for the side port Renesis is for emissions and low RPM fuel economy. Those are areas that are only important in a CAR. The typical aircraft runs 50% to 90% ALL THE TIME and P-ports are much better at mid to high RPMS. The Mazda Le Mans winning engine used P-ports and they were running with a fuel economy formula. (the fuel was limited) For high output P-ports just work better.
Bill Jepson
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.
|