X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5995232 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:17:20 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.223.172; envelope-from=david.staten@gmail.com Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so19646641ieb.17 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:16:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=+FL0JsZzB2ygRSXnd+kxlbK9+bRsP2OTdZUZ2y/Deak=; b=VKUfCViS+nXqU5zWmUqgOmDiPEac+wGG/k/io0JFejJg1ihGen1S4VOQHod8lyhmrN zU27qEwvREv9psKtEmCCkqHEMBQzma3VSsIGumKgw4aSdT+vfp0wNish78SZZOXRiSeB T61L+KMMIsTTDF9ylKDhLb+rAorqs0TxRAc+La6v1EtWlmrSY0/FTIUYBWYyf1mZjHlG uSnSyS9TRbaq3RnwtT8OkiFMoHOQE+m/Q6lNMOWkGP1MpcVhOBCtMcuw8pKwE7gV0ByS OcH/B5rJqpPNuaTcU3eQGfK5rD9oaAifGyLbMQd9ywpv+nejR8bmz5DiNanql4Y1kx4q p6ew== X-Received: by 10.50.45.168 with SMTP id o8mr46694391igm.50.1357316205080; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:16:45 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c-76-31-74-226.hsd1.tx.comcast.net. [76.31.74.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id uz1sm44138985igb.16.2013.01.04.08.16.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:16:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50E70069.8040104@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:16:41 -0600 From: Dave User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000502030700040904020109" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000502030700040904020109 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My bad... was thinking of earlier engine. Still dont boost 10:1. On 1/4/2013 9:44 AM, Bill Bradburry wrote: > > Am I wrong? I don't think that there is a stock turbo oil source and > return on the Renesis? It is not factory turboed. > > Bill B > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Dave > *Sent:* Friday, January 04, 2013 9:53 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold > > Stock turbo oil source on top of front iron, stock turbo oil return on > the front cover/iron. > > Dont boost 10:1. Get low compression rotors. Even with intercooling, > your turbo will increase your intake air temp very significantly, and > eat into detonation margins. It only takes a few seconds to destroy > your apex seals.. quicker than you can detect and react. > > > > On 1/3/2013 11:22 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote: > >> How are the folks with turbos handling the plumbing? Where are you >> picking up the pressurized oil and where/how do you return the oil to >> the crankcase? I read in the install instructions that the oil drain >> line should be one inch in diameter, return above oil level in the >> crankcase, and have no traps in it. That doesn't seem possible with >> the rotary?? How are you doing it? >> >> How far would it be safe to boost the Renesis with the compression at >> 10:1? >> >> Where are you picking up the water for the water cooling of the turbo? >> >> Does anyone have any good pictures of the installation that shows >> these things? >> >> B2 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] >> *On Behalf Of *Steven W. Boese >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:53 PM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold >> >> Rich, >> >> A load cell was installed on one side of the engine mount to measure >> torque. HP was calculated from the torque and the RPM. Most >> installations with a Renesis engine appear to be using a higher gear >> ratio than the 2.18:1 ratio of the reduction drives that I have. >> This lowers the limit the of engine RPM that I am able to achieve >> with a prop suitable for flight. >> >> The HP required to turn the prop at a given static RPM does not >> change if the atmospheric conditions haven't changed. At the highest >> MAP of 21.5" shown on the chart for the NA 13B, the 13B HP is very >> close to the HP of the Renesis at that same MAP. The test data on the >> chart was generated as a first pass at assessing the suitability of >> turbocharging the Renesis compared to the 13B engine. None of the >> configurations should be considered to be optimized. >> >> Steve Boese >> >> RV6A, 1986 13B NA, RD1A, EC2 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net >> ] on behalf of argoldman@aol.com >> [argoldman@aol.com ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:43 PM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold >> >> I had assumed that these were dynamometer results. By what method did >> you ascertain the HP listed? >> >> Interesting results. If the blades stalled (overpowered) at such a >> low RPM would it be correct to assume that at that RPM the engine was >> producing more power than the non Renesis engines at the same RPM >> with the same prop??? >> >> I am so confused... interested also in perhaps turboing the renesis >> in the future?? >> >> Please help >> >> Rich >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven W. Boese >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> >> Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:55 pm >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold >> >> Bobby, >> >> I honestly don't know what the exhaust sound was like. The control >> panel for the test stand is on the opposite side from the exhaust >> outlet. Also, at RPM above 5200, the 3 blade Warp Drive prop >> was stalled and the prop noise was just deafening. I could feel what >> seemed to be ground vibrations in my feet so testing higher power >> levels was disconcerting. At RPM below 5200, the noise was similar to >> having the GM diesel truck muffler on the NA 13B. >> >> Steve >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net >> ] on behalf of Bobby J. Hughes >> [bhughes@qnsi.net ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:33 PM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold >> >> Steve, >> >> How did it sound without a muffler? I removed my belly muffler for a >> speed run and it was not tolerable in the cockpit. Only picked up 1-2 >> mph so the muffler is back on. >> >> Bobby >> --------------000502030700040904020109 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My bad... was thinking of earlier engine.

Still dont boost 10:1.

On 1/4/2013 9:44 AM, Bill Bradburry wrote:

Am I wrong?  I don’t think that there is a stock turbo oil source and return on the Renesis?  It is not factory turboed. 

 

Bill B

 


From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:53 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

 

Stock turbo oil source on top of front iron, stock turbo oil return on the front cover/iron.

Dont boost 10:1. Get low compression rotors. Even with intercooling, your turbo will increase your intake air temp very significantly, and eat into detonation margins. It only takes a few seconds to destroy your apex seals.. quicker than you can detect and react.



On 1/3/2013 11:22 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:

How are the folks with turbos handling the plumbing?  Where are you picking up the pressurized oil and where/how do you return the oil to the crankcase?  I read in the install instructions that the oil drain line should be one inch in diameter, return above oil level in the crankcase, and have no traps in it.  That doesn’t seem possible with the rotary?? How are you doing it?

 

How far would it be safe to boost the Renesis with the compression at 10:1?

 

Where are you picking up the water for the water cooling of the turbo?

 

Does anyone have any good pictures of the installation that shows these things?

 

B2

 


From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Steven W. Boese
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:53 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

 

Rich,

 

A load cell was installed on one side of the engine mount to measure torque.  HP was calculated from the torque and the RPM.  Most installations with a Renesis engine appear to be using a higher gear ratio than the 2.18:1 ratio of the reduction drives that I have.  This lowers the limit the of engine RPM that I am able to achieve with a prop suitable for flight.

 

The HP required to turn the prop at a given static RPM does not change if the atmospheric conditions haven't changed.  At the highest MAP of 21.5" shown on the chart for the NA 13B, the 13B HP is very close to the HP of the Renesis at that same MAP.  The test data on the chart was generated as a first pass at assessing the suitability of turbocharging the Renesis compared to the 13B engine.  None of the configurations should be considered to be optimized. 

 

Steve Boese

RV6A, 1986 13B NA, RD1A, EC2

     


From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of argoldman@aol.com [argoldman@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

I had assumed that these were dynamometer results. By what method did you ascertain the HP listed?

Interesting results. If the blades stalled (overpowered) at such a low RPM would it be correct to assume that at that RPM the engine was producing more power than the non Renesis engines at the same RPM with the same prop???

I am so confused... interested also in perhaps turboing the renesis in the future??

Please help

Rich

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven W. Boese <SBoese@uwyo.edu>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 2:55 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

Bobby,

 

I honestly don't know what the exhaust sound was like.  The control panel for the test stand is on the opposite side from the exhaust outlet.  Also, at RPM above 5200, the 3 blade Warp Drive prop was stalled and the prop noise was just deafening.  I could feel what seemed to be ground vibrations in my feet so testing higher power levels was disconcerting.  At RPM below 5200, the noise was similar to having the GM diesel truck muffler on the NA 13B.

 

Steve


From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of Bobby J. Hughes [bhughes@qnsi.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:33 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo manifold

Steve,

 

How did it sound without a muffler? I removed my belly muffler for a speed run and it was not tolerable in the cockpit. Only picked up 1-2 mph so the muffler is back on.

 

Bobby

 

 

 


--------------000502030700040904020109--