X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Charlie England" Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1c1) with ESMTPS id 7342603 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:10:58 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.218.41; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id a3so5397603oib.0 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:10:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=CqrzS+2zIR2zLkwGYK/mhXpHFRt9QOXNisLIhktp6fY=; b=cW9YLkjSqvySnn11An75Gq7P+Ahj/3SVtcLJfiZCaI2HU5jzcYp/98cGshXR5xI7qm SmKgXodtYukpwn3XJkBN/tWruILu4fn4C3SqqkaxogSyfrAiq2PUjK7AUNFAUZ4uNXs/ ok/cVeAk76ZLKSDqogbwDaRhpu9DdUT1Tr9pC2XNwpLYQ6202TtB46ELAx8PAYlSxCOC 7YoabMGq2CKByEoSFc1GBCdlGtonWMQgJ+qkQ4qMhcOOPf4AnT8r65stQXF2oEkgqpZi Ev9W87p5YZS4Ke+M3++9gxQ2z15O6GJ0Y6us6mAOEWhiIt6n8KApMfBtriCYBPBNgh1A QChQ== X-Received: by 10.202.107.15 with SMTP id g15mr9881645oic.84.1418397022392; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:10:22 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:25fb:2e09:28a6:f64c:6588:784b? ([2602:306:25fb:2e09:28a6:f64c:6588:784b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y6sm660070obg.0.2014.12.12.07.10.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:10:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <548B05FE.70600@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:13:02 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: the List References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020203090809050308020206" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020203090809050308020206 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The -8's are designed for heavier engines and have 200 lb higher factory recommended gross weight limits. There are some 'super six' planes flying with 6 cyl Lycs (heavy), but with severely limited payload and no acro allowed. Charlie On 12/12/2014 7:13 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: > So, then go with aluminum side housings. Probably wouldn't be any > heavier than a turbo 13b. How does the empty weight and CG on Tracy's > -8 compare to the typical installation? > Mark > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Charlie England > > wrote: > > Contemplating an airframe change (from RV-6), to go with the > change to 20B? That's a lot of weight for the nose of a -6. > > Charlie > > > On 12/11/2014 2:11 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: >> David, >> You're welcome to drop in to Lockhart, TX any time and take a >> look at my p-port 3-rotor Lancair ES. It reliably produces loads >> of horsepower, while cruising at over 200 mph on about 11.5 gph. >> And yes, it is loud. Any "quiet" mufflers I've tried have >> increased EGT's while reducing top speed, or didn't last long >> enough to find out how well it worked. I'm still running a "DNA" >> muffler (made in Canada). >> Mark S. >> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:17 AM, David Leonard >> > > wrote: >> >> In a perfect world I would have a turbo p-port 3-rotor. :-) >> >> I sort of ended up with a turbo because it was just sitting >> there (came with my '91 turbo engine) so I decided to try it >> on for size and it never went away. I am glad I have it, but >> the 3-rotor and/or p-port would have been nice options. The >> turbo quiets things down just enough to be tolerable, but my >> formation friends can hear me when I am flying on their >> wing... largely because the sound is different, but it is >> also a little louder I think. But is is quieter than a n/a >> rotary engine by just enough to matter. >> >> The turbo is not particularly less expensive than a p-port in >> the long run. By the time I got most of the issues worked >> out I am in for over $5k in turbo rebuilds and non-fitting >> manifolds etc. Even when cared for correctly (keeping EGT >> down), they are only going to last 1000 hrs or so (who knows) >> and each rebuild costs $1k. In the long run though, these >> costs or the costs of a p-port or 3-rotor are trivial when >> compared with the cost of operating an aircraft. If my turbo >> has cost me $5/hr, then Avionics have cost $20/hr, gas has >> been $45/hr and the hangar has been about $50/hr. Dont let >> the relatively small cost differences sway your decision here. >> >> The turbo definitely adds much more power than p-port would, >> both down low and up high. And with the p-port the sound >> issue is not trivial if your are going to be maximizing the >> power output. Lets put it this way, you wont find me ever >> removing my turbo. >> >> But, if I were to do it again, I would probably go with a >> 3-rotor. Pretty close to the same power as the turbo, weighs >> a little more but is more reliable and efficient. There have >> been many examples of successfully (and continued) flying of >> turbos and 3-rotors. But p-ports in aircraft are sort of >> like UFOs: you hear a lot about them, but you never really >> see one. >> >> Not to say that p-port isn't the best option. It is light >> weight, simple (in a sense), reliable, efficient, lower drag, >> and brings the power of a 2-rotor right where you need it for >> something like an RV. >> >> I hope this discussion has be helpful (yea right!). >> >> Dave Leonard >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Neil Unger >> > > wrote: >> >> Dave, >> A few of us in OZ were discussing your engine >> with full authority (Called ignorance) and wondered what >> engine you have and what your thoughts are re the turbo. >> Is it worth the effort?? Just looking to save the P port >> cost, and get a slight HP boost, with the muffler problem >> eliminated. Does it actually work that way, or is it too >> much grief? Neil. >> *From:* David Leonard >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:04 AM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: >> [FlyRotary] Re: the List >> everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a >> cry for attention, It does make the best smoke of the group. >> Here is a picture of the pump placement >> David Leonard >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM, David Leonard >> > > wrote: >> >> I have smoke on my plane, I just used the same pump >> as the EFI pump that Tracy used to sell. it weighs >> less than a pound and puts out about the right flow >> rate. Built in check valve. I have not problem with >> leaking. instant cutoff. Tank is in the wing and pump >> in the wing root which keeps the system and oil smell >> out of the baggage area. >> The rotary makes nice hot exhaust which is great for >> supporting a lot of oil without leaving a residue >> (except for the 2-stroke oil) >> Dave Leonard >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Charlie England >> > > wrote: >> >> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1417917551-356-672&action=search >> >> This is made to control fuel to primer ports on a >> carb'd engine, but would probably do the job. No >> idea how well it would survive the heat of the >> engine compartment, where it would need to be for >> a quick/clean cutoff. Maybe mounted low on the >> firewall away from the air exit, with the lines >> running uphill to the smoke port on the exhaust? >> >> Charlie >> >> On 12/6/2014 2:59 PM, hoursaway1 wrote: >>> Yep, I'm here in Michigan doing holiday stuff & >>> visiting kids/grand kids. also am working on a >>> smoke sys. for the RV6A Rotary, want min. 3 >>> gal., portable, useing automotive fuel pump, >>> looking for a solinoid valve control for flow ( >>> no dribbling soft smoke trail ). David R. Cook >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Fly rotary blog, e-mail" >>> mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net >>> *To: *"Fly rotary blog, e-mail" >>> mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net >>> *Sent: *Friday, December 5, 2014 10:10:54 PM >>> *Subject: *[FlyRotary] Re: the List >>> The last message that I seem to have received >>> from the list was 11/19. this >>> is a test to see if I have inadvertently been >>> dropped. >>> Bill Schertz >> >> > --------------020203090809050308020206 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The -8's are designed for heavier engines and have 200 lb higher factory recommended gross weight limits. There are some 'super six' planes flying with 6 cyl Lycs (heavy), but with severely limited payload and no acro allowed.

Charlie

On 12/12/2014 7:13 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:
So, then go with aluminum side housings.  Probably wouldn't be any heavier than a turbo 13b.  How does the empty weight and CG on Tracy's -8 compare to the typical installation?
 
Mark

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Charlie England <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
Contemplating an airframe change (from RV-6), to go with the change to 20B? That's a lot of weight for the nose of a -6.

Charlie


On 12/11/2014 2:11 PM, Mark Steitle wrote:
David,
 
You're welcome to drop in to Lockhart, TX any time and take a look at my p-port 3-rotor Lancair ES.  It reliably produces loads of horsepower, while cruising at over 200 mph on about 11.5 gph.  And yes, it is loud.  Any "quiet" mufflers I've tried have increased EGT's while reducing top speed, or didn't last long enough to find out how well it worked.  I'm still running a "DNA" muffler (made in Canada). 
 
Mark S.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:17 AM, David Leonard <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
In a perfect world I would have a turbo p-port 3-rotor. :-)

I sort of ended up with a turbo because it was just sitting there (came with my '91 turbo engine) so I decided to try it on for size and it never went away.  I am glad I have it, but the 3-rotor and/or p-port would have been nice options.  The turbo quiets things down just enough to be tolerable, but my formation friends can hear me when I am flying on their wing...  largely because the sound is different, but it is also a little louder I think.  But is is quieter than a n/a rotary engine by just enough to matter.

The turbo is not particularly less expensive than a p-port in the long run.  By the time I got most of the issues worked out I am in for over $5k in turbo rebuilds and non-fitting manifolds etc.  Even when cared for correctly (keeping EGT down), they are only going to last 1000 hrs or so (who knows) and each rebuild costs $1k.  In the long run though, these costs or the costs of a p-port or 3-rotor are trivial when compared with the cost of operating an aircraft.  If my turbo has cost me $5/hr, then Avionics have cost $20/hr, gas has been $45/hr and the hangar has been about $50/hr.  Dont let the relatively small cost differences sway your decision here.

The turbo definitely adds much more power than p-port would, both down low and up high.  And with the p-port the sound issue is not trivial if your are going to be maximizing the power output. Lets put it this way, you wont find me ever removing my turbo.

But, if I were to do it again, I would probably go with a 3-rotor.  Pretty close to the same power as the turbo, weighs a little more but is more reliable and efficient.  There have been many examples of successfully (and continued) flying of turbos and 3-rotors.  But p-ports in aircraft are sort of like UFOs:  you hear a lot about them, but you never really see one.

Not to say that p-port isn't the best option.  It is light weight, simple (in a sense), reliable, efficient, lower drag, and brings the power of a 2-rotor right where you need it for something like an RV.

I hope this discussion has be helpful (yea right!).

Dave Leonard


On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Neil Unger <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
Dave,
            A few of us in OZ were discussing your engine with full authority (Called ignorance) and wondered what engine you have and what your thoughts are re the turbo.  Is it worth the effort??  Just looking to save the P port cost, and get a slight HP boost, with the muffler problem eliminated.  Does it actually work that way, or is it too much grief?  Neil.
 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:04 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: the List
 
everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a cry for attention, It does make the best smoke of the group.
 
Here is a picture of the pump placement
 
David Leonard
 
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM, David Leonard <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
I have smoke on my plane, I just used the same pump as the EFI pump that Tracy used to sell.  it weighs less than a pound and puts out about the right flow rate.  Built in check valve.  I have not problem with leaking. instant cutoff.  Tank is in the wing and pump in the wing root which keeps the system and oil smell out of the baggage area.
 
The rotary makes nice hot exhaust which is great for supporting a lot of oil without leaving a residue (except for the 2-stroke oil)
 
Dave Leonard
 
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Charlie England <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1417917551-356-672&action=search

This is made to control fuel to primer ports on a carb'd engine, but would probably do the job. No idea how well it would survive the heat of the engine compartment, where it would need to be for a quick/clean cutoff. Maybe mounted low on the firewall away from the air exit, with the lines running uphill to the smoke port on the exhaust?

Charlie

On 12/6/2014 2:59 PM, hoursaway1 wrote:
Yep, I'm here in Michigan doing holiday stuff & visiting kids/grand kids.  also am working on a smoke sys. for the RV6A Rotary, want min. 3 gal., portable, useing automotive fuel pump, looking for a solinoid valve control for flow ( no dribbling soft smoke trail ).  David R. Cook
 
 
From: "Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net
To: "Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:10:54 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: the List
 
The last message that I seem to have received from the list was 11/19. this
is a test to see if I have inadvertently been dropped.
Bill Schertz

 



--------------020203090809050308020206--