wrote: >=20 > Whenever the topic comes up about adding a turbo to a Rotary I go back to w= hat was the reasoning I used when making the decision to go Rotary in the fi= rst place. > My reasoning was to eliminate as much mechanical complexity as I possibly c= ould. 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 wou= ld just add another rotor. That actually gives me more power that the turbo f= or where I need it most and the weight comparison is negligible for the trad= e-off in power/complexity. > =20 > I believe that a 2 rotor (using Mistral Engines as a benchmark) produces 1= 90hp N/A (291 lbs) vs. 230hp Turbo (328 lb). The three rotor generates 300 h= p @ 375 lb so yes, it=E2=80=99s it=E2=80=99s roughly +50 lbs but +70 hp as w= ell without a significant increase in complexity. > =20 > I opted for the 3-rotor solution. Less things to go wrong (which is import= ant to me.) > =20 > T Mann > =20 --Apple-Mail-235735C8-0892-479D-A291-4BF4B4F347F9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would have to agree, from what I've h= eard as well over the years when turbos tend to be installed there is added c= omplexity and issues to go along with it, and failures and heat etc.

With my current low drag radiator installs I can run wot and not see temp= s over 93-95 now.

And has been very reliable, I wasn't to concerne= d into runner lengths with my design and made a simple plenum chamber and wi= th the prince p tip prop seems to be an excellent combo.

My airstr= ip is at 3000 ft and I can still get airborne on a normal 25 c day in 350 mt= rs,

Hope this helps

Cheers

S= ent from my iPad

On 8 Oct 2015, at 5:33 am, Tom Mann <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>= ; wrote:

Whenever the topic comes up about addi= ng a turbo=20 to a Rotary I go back to what was the reasoning I used when making the decis= ion=20 to go Rotary in the first place.

My reasoning was to eliminate as much m= echanical=20 complexity as I possibly could. If I added a turbo then the level of complex= ity=20 (and weight) went up.

I reasoned that if I needed (or just p= lain wanted)=20 additional power, I would just add another rotor. That actually gives me mor= e=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 Mistra= l Engines as=20 a benchmark) produces 190hp N/A (291 lbs) vs. 230hp Turbo (328 lb). The thre= e=20 rotor generates 300 hp @ 375 lb so yes, it=E2=80=99s it=E2=80=99s roughly +5= 0 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

= --Apple-Mail-235735C8-0892-479D-A291-4BF4B4F347F9--