|
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.
RV6A, 1986
13B NA, RD1A, EC2
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
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.
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
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.
|