X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Mark Steitle" Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1c2) with ESMTPS id 7350439 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:24:22 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.218.45; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by mail-oi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id a141so6401784oig.18 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 06:23:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:from:content-type:in-reply-to:message-id:date:to :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iC7ZA1wLECxVQIo3CFI5rfa8TlQCMsUkrq/SqyteoBo=; b=ZRNJzPWVP4Ho3V9FXAPrI2gF86RrcMu43c3+SLsicWW95lvpJgHPZXHq3AKXUtx82k HXSBVRE+D9ensORkxoMLeP0hd8MfXmS4VRl81dooLhRpHa7grFtB0hdFCrOQYxwUX5y2 eky04u+2877PSjO4qPUQrgHMNeltfMSe6Xn0KYH0yffbD/dW1nqTUUdiseqlV34ca9Kn gnjzflyEb/iAKKZ2yEYXzSfx0hHaGLcjEmCPe8qll3+KSq/2Yf1zbuGaO5t+QyIWfdM/ JApjs9UsXcZMW5dMu7vZQ0tFzoH/O+9YsYSbeXp61T2nRVtJsxKEvIISgeiXr5yxUdn3 +w4g== X-Received: by 10.182.168.115 with SMTP id zv19mr12644909obb.1.1418480627636; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 06:23:47 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.128] (104-7-222-198.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net. [104.7.222.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pn7sm1983113oeb.15.2014.12.13.06.23.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 13 Dec 2014 06:23:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: smoke system control, was: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: the List References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-B776FFB1-9625-4B3C-99CB-17C0329F2E54 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B435) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:23:44 -0600 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-B776FFB1-9625-4B3C-99CB-17C0329F2E54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tracy,=20 Thanks for furnishing your empty weight number. While I know that you went t= o great lengths to save weight wherever possible, your numbers prove that th= e 20b is a viable option. I know that I really love the smoothness and extra= power I get from mine. =20 Mark S. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 12, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Tracy wrote: >=20 > Can't remember the exact number but it was around 1150. Some of the weigh= t increase was from extending the wings. Still, many -8s are coming in at 1= 200+ but most of them have heavy CS metal props.=20 >=20 > Tracy >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 >> On Dec 12, 2014, at 13:14, Mark Steitle wro= te: >>=20 >> Tracy, >> =20 >> As I recall, you used the stock cast iron side housings. How does your e= mpty weight compare with other RV-8's?=20 >> =20 >> Mark=20 >>=20 >>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Tracy wro= te: >>> My CG was a little aft of average, but I put my 925 size battery behind t= he aft baggage compartment to get there. =20 >>>=20 >>> Tracy >>>=20 >>> Sent from my iPad >>>=20 >>>> On Dec 12, 2014, at 08:13, Mark Steitle w= rote: >>>>=20 >>>> So, then go with aluminum side housings. Probably wouldn't be any heav= ier than a turbo 13b. How does the empty weight and CG on Tracy's -8 compar= e to the typical installation? >>>> =20 >>>> Mark >>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Charlie >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 12/11/2014 2:11 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: >>>>>> David, >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> 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, wh= ile 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).=20 >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> Mark S. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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. :-) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I sort of ended up with a turbo because it was just sitting there (c= ame with my '91 turbo engine) so I decided to try it on for size and it neve= r went away. I am glad I have it, but the 3-rotor and/or p-port would have b= een 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... lar= gely 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The turbo is not particularly less expensive than a p-port in the lo= ng run. By the time I got most of the issues worked out I am in for over $5= k in turbo rebuilds and non-fitting manifolds etc. Even when cared for corr= ectly (keeping EGT down), they are only going to last 1000 hrs or so (who kn= ows) 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 ope= rating 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 t= he relatively small cost differences sway your decision here. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The turbo definitely adds much more power than p-port would, both do= wn low and up high. And with the p-port the sound issue is not trivial if y= our are going to be maximizing the power output. Lets put it this way, you w= ont find me ever removing my turbo. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> But, if I were to do it again, I would probably go with a 3-rotor. P= retty 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Not to say that p-port isn't the best option. It is light weight, s= imple (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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I hope this discussion has be helpful (yea right!). >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Dave Leonard >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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 you= r 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 elimin= ated. Does it actually work that way, or is it too much grief? Neil. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> everyone agrees that although the sound of my rotary is a cry for a= ttention, It does make the best smoke of the group. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> Here is a picture of the pump placement >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> David Leonard >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> 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 pum= p that Tracy used to sell. it weighs less than a pound and puts out about t= he 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 t= he system and oil smell out of the baggage area. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> The rotary makes nice hot exhaust which is great for supporting a l= ot of oil without leaving a residue (except for the 2-stroke oil) >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Dave Leonard >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Charlie England wrote: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=3D1417917551-= 356-672&action=3Dsearch >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> This is made to control fuel to primer ports on a carb'd engine, b= ut would probably do the job. No idea how well it would survive the heat of t= he engine compartment, where it would need to be for a quick/clean cutoff. M= aybe mounted low on the firewall away from the air exit, with the lines runn= ing uphill to the smoke port on the exhaust? >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Charlie >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2014 2:59 PM, hoursaway1 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Yep, I'm here in Michigan doing holiday stuff & visiting kids/gr= and kids. also am working on a smoke sys. for the RV6A Rotary, want min. 3 g= al., portable, useing automotive fuel pump, looking for a solinoid valve con= trol for flow ( no dribbling soft smoke trail ). David R. Cook >>>>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>>> From: "Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.n= et >>>>>>>>>>> To: "Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net= >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:10:54 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: the List >>>>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>>> The last message that I seem to have received from the list was 1= 1/19. this=20 >>>>>>>>>>> is a test to see if I have inadvertently been dropped. >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Schertz >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 --Apple-Mail-B776FFB1-9625-4B3C-99CB-17C0329F2E54 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tracy, 
Thanks for furn= ishing your empty weight number.  While I know that you went to great l= engths to save weight wherever possible, your numbers prove that the 20b is a= viable option. I know that I really love the smoothness and extra power I g= et from mine.  

Mark S.


Sent= from my iPad

On Dec 12, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Tracy <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wro= te:

Can't remember the exact n= umber but it was around 1150.  Some of the weight increase was from ext= ending the wings.  Still, many -8s are coming in at 1200+ but most of t= hem have heavy CS metal props. 

Tracy

S= ent from my iPad

On Dec 12, 2014, at 13:14, Mark Steitle <<= a href=3D"mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net">flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Tracy,
 
As I recall, you used the stock cast i= ron side housings.  How does your empty weight compare with other RV-8'= s? 
 
Mark 

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Tra= cy <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
My CG was a little aft of average, b= ut I put my 925 size battery behind the aft baggage compartment to get there= .  

Tracy

Sent from my iPad
<= div class=3D"h5">

On Dec 12, 2014, at 08:13, Mark Steitle <flyrotary@lancair= online.net> wrote:

So, then go with aluminum side housings.  Probably woul= dn't be any heavier than a turbo 13b.  How does the empty weight a= nd CG on Tracy's -8 compare to the typical installation?
&nbs= p;
Mark

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Charlie England <flyro= tary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
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 ove= r 200 mph on about 11.5 gph.  And yes, it is loud.  Any "quiet" mu= fflers 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 th= e 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 th= e 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 th= e 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 reall= y 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 l= ooking 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 chec= k 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 = <flyrota= ry@lancaironline.net> wrote:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=3D= 1417917551-356-672&action=3Dsearch

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@lancaironlin= e.net
To: "Fly rotary blog, e-mail" mailto:flyrotary= @lancaironline.net
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:10:54 PM
Subject: [FlyRota= ry] 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

 
<= /font>

= --Apple-Mail-B776FFB1-9625-4B3C-99CB-17C0329F2E54--