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 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4028245 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:00:24 -0500 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 (mail.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.34]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE26017396B for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:59:46 +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 93459BEC00C for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:59:44 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <9BEE8B0EA40F4E8AADB74DA5AB2745F8@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Cooling Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:59:47 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA8078.DA364120" 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 091218-0, 12/18/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA8078.DA364120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark, I'm wondering about the 16X or the 16X Mark 2, and what that will give = in regard to hp. May be impractical to go the 3 rotor with the 16X , = although anything is doable, but it sure would be a nice weight and may = be your answer with boosted hp for TO and climb. From memory ( and that's not a good thing) I believe their looking at = the 70mm and 76mm rotor width - something to do how the flame front is = affected in the narrow housing. I'm wondering how the HP stands up = without a very complex inlet manifold. I have seen some photo's on the internet and if they are indeed 16X = prototypes they look very similar to the 13B Renesis with a narrow = rotor- something to do with increased thermal efficiency with the narrow = rotor. My guess is that there is a reduced squish area with a narrow = rotor as well. Personally I would have liked a wider rotor, however = emissions priorities have it over straight power in the current climate. Just thinking out aloud! Has anyone got any additional info on the new engine? George ( down under) George,=20 Yes, at 7500 max rpm, I probably won't see 375hp. And at my normal = cruise rpm of 5200, I'll be lucky to see 300hp. But that is why I'm = building the pport, for that little extra over the side port n/a engine. = I do have a ram-air system, but it only provides about 1/2" MAP boost. = So, I'll take what I get. I anticipate the pport engine will be lighter = due to a simplified intake and a new exhaust. If I can shave 10-15#, = then a turbo could also be in my future. =20 In reality, I can hit VNE with the present motor, so any hp beyond = what I have now is not good for much except higher climb rates. =20 Mark On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, George Lendich = wrote: Mark, I notice your Hp requirements for the 20B, which is 125hp per rotor. = This exactly what I'm aiming for in a single rotor application, but = would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's all I got. Given that the motor can only gulp so much fuel and air and HP is = dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our case. Are you considering = any forced induction other than tuned inlet . I've opted to use the RX8 high compression rotor to give me some = addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to give higher inlet velocity, = however my maths indicate even with this arrangement, 125hp might be = out of the question. Certainly higher RPM would solve the problem, but = that's not available with reduction ratio I'm considering and many are = using, might get to 7,500 but that's it. George ( down under) George,=20 Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling my = current engine. But I am building a P-port 20B to replace this motor = downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 =3D 300). The = Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x 11 x 3). Close enough = for government work. =20 Mark ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA8078.DA364120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark,
I'm wondering about the 16X or the 16X = Mark 2, and=20 what that will give in regard to hp.  May be impractical to go the = 3 rotor=20 with the 16X , although anything is doable,  but it sure would be a = nice=20 weight and may be your answer with boosted hp for TO and = climb.
 
From memory ( and that's not a good = thing) I=20 believe their looking at the 70mm and 76mm rotor width - something to do = how the=20 flame front is affected in the narrow housing. I'm wondering how the HP = stands=20 up without a very complex  inlet manifold.
 
I have seen some photo's on the = internet and if=20 they are indeed 16X prototypes they look very similar to the 13B Renesis = with a=20 narrow rotor- something to do with increased thermal efficiency with the = narrow=20 rotor. My guess is that there is a reduced squish area with a narrow = rotor as=20 well. Personally I would have liked  a wider rotor, however = emissions=20 priorities have it over straight power in the current = climate.
 
Just thinking out aloud!
Has anyone got any additional info on = the new=20 engine?
George ( down under)

George,
 
Yes, at 7500 max rpm, I probably won't see 375hp.  And at my = normal=20 cruise rpm of 5200, I'll be lucky to see 300hp.  But that is why = I'm=20 building the pport, for that little extra over the side port n/a = engine. =20 I do have a ram-air system, but it only provides about 1/2" MAP = boost. =20 So, I'll take what I get.  I anticipate the pport engine will be = lighter=20 due to a simplified intake and a new exhaust.  If I can shave = 10-15#,=20 then a turbo could also be in my future.  
 
In reality, I can hit VNE with the present motor,=20 so any hp beyond what I have now is not good for = much=20 except higher climb rates. 
 
Mark

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, George = Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> = wrote:
Mark,
I notice your Hp requirements for = the 20B,=20 which is 125hp per rotor. This exactly what I'm aiming for in a = single rotor=20 application, but would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's all I=20 got.
 
Given that the motor can only gulp = so much fuel=20 and air and HP is dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our case. = Are you=20 considering any forced induction other than tuned = inlet .
 
I've opted to use the RX8 high = compression=20 rotor to give me some addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to = give=20 higher inlet velocity, however my maths indicate even with = this =20 arrangement, 125hp might be out of the question. Certainly higher = RPM would=20 solve the problem, but that's not available with reduction ratio I'm = considering and many are using, might get to 7,500 but that's=20 it.
George ( down under)
 
 
 
George,
 
Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling = my=20 current engine.  But I am building a P-port 20B to = replace=20 this motor downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 = =3D=20 300).  The Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x = 11 x=20 3).  Close enough for government work. 
 
=
Mark


------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA8078.DA364120--