X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-bw0-f226.google.com ([209.85.218.226] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4028707 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:55:28 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.218.226; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so2673377bwz.27 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:54:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=MDu+lTRiSOVU+9bxztW2vVaBVYioo5PfjR9g5TSyC9s=; b=vkY97EHiXFAdCkupnituiK/QpyjKHHFeuIfX4uCusmA+erAO1TdhlT1p/4LHTauogO cNz+9FJ+HpiYqR8UMtmbRh0XJLirKdo6lQs6ile9j3Hs3P+8zrkvI67VAKP6k6fykxp2 vUI09/pbcSDAIi3gXP3LUwCZW2idLOwad3g0I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=a6At2PmSiNxkKrsPZGRg03KITbJfB2IjFSKJ3D3xJunJmi6RuoFTFsYroK33qNNagW HkLldlOdzZEDKhRGoFi5EWIim61FDwjPSLOnB7oGWn4D8jOePcyR+on3DAI8D1PaOhD1 hw+RT+0GbX/x4/+hQK+k3DyDJiXnHuVggZ7Fc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.34.18 with SMTP id j18mr979840bkd.38.1261191290735; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:54:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:54:50 -0600 Message-ID: <5cf132c0912181854l3668bd48ke1d7892d9dd6e357@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Cooling From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555b392e0ce32047b0bfa00 --00032555b392e0ce32047b0bfa00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 George, I think there are a whole bunch of builders waiting in the wings for the 16X to become available. For the first 5-10 years, they would be bringing a premium price-wise. The one thing the 16X doesn't offer though is a third rotor. I feel much better having an extra rotor, just in case one of the other two decide to stop producing power. But that's just my personal preference. What I would really like is a 3-rotor version of the 16X (24X). Mark On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM, George Lendich wrote: > 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, > > 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. > > 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. > > 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, >> >> >> 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 = 300). The Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu >> in (core size is 9 x 11 x 3). Close enough for government work. >> >> Mark >> >> > --00032555b392e0ce32047b0bfa00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
George,
=A0
I think there are a whole bunch of builders waiting in the wings for t= he 16X to become available.=A0 For the first 5-10 years, they would be brin= ging a premium price-wise.=A0 The one thing=A0the 16X=A0doesn't=A0offer= though is a third rotor.=A0 I feel much better having=A0an extra rotor, ju= st in case one of the=A0other two=A0decide to stop producing power.=A0 But = that's just my personal preference.=A0 What I would really like is a 3-= rotor version of the 16X (24X).
=A0
Mark=A0

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM, George Lendich = <lendich@aanet= .com.au> wrote:
Mark,
I'm wondering about the 16X or the= 16X Mark 2, and what that will give in regard to hp.=A0 May be impractical= to go the 3 rotor with the 16X , although anything is doable,=A0 but it su= re would be a nice weight and may be your answer with boosted hp for TO and= climb.
=A0
From memory ( and that's not a goo= d thing) I believe their looking at the 70mm and 76mm rotor width - somethi= ng to do how the flame front is affected in the narrow housing. I'm won= dering how the HP stands up without a very complex=A0 inlet manifold.
=A0
I have seen some photo's on the in= ternet 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 eff= iciency with the narrow rotor. My guess is that there is a reduced squish a= rea with a narrow rotor as well. Personally I would have liked=A0 a wider r= otor, however emissions priorities have it over straight power in the curre= nt climate.
=A0
Just thinking out aloud!
Has anyone got any additional info on = the new engine?
George ( down under)

George,
=A0
Yes, at 7500 max rpm, I probably won't see 375hp.=A0 And at my nor= mal cruise rpm of 5200, I'll be lucky to see 300hp.=A0 But that is why = I'm building the pport, for that little extra over the side port n/a en= gine.=A0 I do have a ram-air system, but it only provides about 1/2" M= AP boost.=A0 So, I'll take what I get.=A0 I anticipate the pport engine= will be lighter due to a simplified intake and a new exhaust.=A0 If I can = shave 10-15#, then a turbo could also be in my future.=A0=A0
=A0
In reality,=A0I can hit=A0VNE with the present motor, so=A0any=A0hp be= yond=A0what I have now=A0is not good for much except higher climb rates.=A0=
=A0
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, which is 125hp per rotor. This exactly what I'm aiming for in a si= ngle rotor application, but would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's= all I got.
=A0
Given that the motor can only gulp so = much fuel and air and HP is dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our ca= se. Are you considering any forced induction other than tuned inlet= =A0.
=A0
I've opted to use the RX8 high com= pression rotor to give me=A0some addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to gi= ve higher inlet velocity, however my maths indicate even with this=A0 arran= gement, 125hp might be out of the question. Certainly higher RPM would solv= e the problem, but that's not available with reduction ratio I'm co= nsidering and many are using, might get to 7,500 but that's it.<= /div>
George ( down under)
=A0
=A0
=A0
George,
=A0
Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling my current= engine.=A0 But I am=A0building a P-port 20B to replace this motor downstre= am, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 =3D 300).=A0 The Fluidyne coole= r is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x 11 x 3).=A0 Close enough for government wo= rk.=A0
=A0
Mark

<= br>

--00032555b392e0ce32047b0bfa00--