X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Tom Mann" Received: from mail.infosaic.com ([216.226.129.129] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8055512 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:33:49 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.226.129.129; envelope-from=tmann@n200lz.com Received: from DSS04 (v-209-134-133-68.ip.visi.com [209.134.133.68]) by mail.infosaic.com with SMTP (version=Tls cipher=Aes128 bits=128); Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:41:31 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: "Tom Mann" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:33:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008B_01D1010D.191E6500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01D1010D.191E6500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Whenever the topic comes up about adding a turbo to a Rotary I go back = to what was the reasoning I used when making the decision to go Rotary = in the first place. My reasoning was to eliminate as much mechanical complexity as I = possibly could. If I added a turbo then the level of complexity (and = weight) went up. I reasoned that if I needed (or just plain wanted) additional power, I = would just add another rotor. That actually gives me more power that the = turbo for where I need it most and the weight comparison is negligible = for the trade-off in power/complexity. I believe that a 2 rotor (using Mistral Engines as a benchmark) produces = 190hp N/A (291 lbs) vs. 230hp Turbo (328 lb). The three rotor generates = 300 hp @ 375 lb so yes, it=E2=80=99s it=E2=80=99s roughly +50 lbs but = +70 hp as well without a significant increase in complexity.=20 I opted for the 3-rotor solution. Less things to go wrong (which is = important to me.) T Mann ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01D1010D.191E6500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Whenever the topic comes up about = adding a turbo=20 to a Rotary I go back to what was the reasoning I used when making the = decision=20 to go Rotary in the first place.
My reasoning was to eliminate as much = mechanical=20 complexity as I possibly could. If I added a turbo then the level of = complexity=20 (and weight) went up.
I reasoned that if I needed (or just = plain wanted)=20 additional power, I would just add another rotor. That actually gives me = more=20 power that the turbo for where I need it most and the weight comparison = is=20 negligible for the trade-off in power/complexity.
 
I believe that a 2 rotor (using = Mistral Engines as=20 a benchmark) produces 190hp N/A (291 lbs) vs. 230hp Turbo (328 lb). The = three=20 rotor generates 300 hp @ 375 lb so yes, it=E2=80=99s it=E2=80=99s = roughly +50 lbs but +70 hp as=20 well without a significant increase in complexity.
 
I opted for the 3-rotor solution. Less = things to=20 go wrong (which is important to me.)
 
T Mann
 
------=_NextPart_000_008B_01D1010D.191E6500--