X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8058143 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:10:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.45; envelope-from=christamarmc@gmail.com Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so78850104pac.0 for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:09:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:to; bh=VhARxMhD9sSi3xw6BSfu9FMCnN1zQKyLM7NVlSFQ2Bc=; b=LEXQtcuarsWYgL/VdJJrqCHlusRX+6aj7RXgiVLpDLpnXOb0o00kIZCVgT8Hv3djMW 0saK+fi0BVOkBQIND55L9HQyuLsv1xoArwDtE+L5LsihYfOiXlkkswlah9v3cbhIATz7 tub8ui8f4FFJ/oBHoUQl5puM5ux/HV7qgHP5irydToV007xViBXFsuLLHiPNFRcXqkES MhIPxQLOp+kJ8jMsNBICfWHStorB4JlMsqnuq3/OjI1VQucXdl77YuLwHbLVMOgbOTq6 DmpYoSmkLluRCCTeqZOmqKpyMoh1zDblTbeJ4I6Lzrgr+3jWnOw5YnHjkTGclDvj4fk4 VPag== X-Received: by 10.67.7.71 with SMTP id da7mr13551128pad.69.1444374595732; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.4] (41.12.148.122.sta.dodo.net.au. [122.148.12.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id xg2sm404970pbb.2.2015.10.09.00.09.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-237AEC72-5FC6-4D8D-AF44-16A543A374A4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: [BULK] [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Message-Id: <04704719-A40A-4AA3-9A93-E31148A2056D@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:09:46 +1000 References: In-Reply-To: To: Rotary motors in aircraft X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69) --Apple-Mail-237AEC72-5FC6-4D8D-AF44-16A543A374A4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi bobby I see on average around 15-16 mp at idle and around the 2-3 wot, at idle it s= eems happy at around 1800-2000 rpm Cheers Christian Sent from my iPad > On 9 Oct 2015, at 6:35 am, Bobby J. Hughes w= rote: >=20 > Are you using individual throttle body=E2=80=99s per rotor? What=E2=80=99s= manifold pressure to you see at cold idle? I=E2=80=99ve seen a PP pre-rene= sis engine idle at 18=E2=80=9DMP when cold. Improves a little when once warm= ed up. > =20 > Bobby Hughes > =20 > =20 > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:48 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [BULK] [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... > Importance: Low > =20 > I would have to agree, from what I've heard as well over the years when tu= rbos tend to be installed there is added complexity and issues to go along w= ith it, and failures and heat etc. > With my current low drag radiator installs I can run wot and not see temps= over 93-95 now. > And has been very reliable, I wasn't to concerned into runner lengths with= my design and made a simple plenum chamber and with the prince p tip prop s= eems to be an excellent combo. > My airstrip is at 3000 ft and I can still get airborne on a normal 25 c da= y in 350 mtrs,=20 > Hope this helps > =20 > Cheers >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On 8 Oct 2015, at 5:33 am, Tom Mann 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-237AEC72-5FC6-4D8D-AF44-16A543A374A4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi bobby
I see on average ar= ound 15-16 mp at idle and around the 2-3 wot, at idle it seems happy at arou= nd 1800-2000 rpm

Cheers
Christian

= Sent from my iPad

On 9 Oct 2015, at 6:35 am, Bobby J. Hughes &= lt;flyrotary@lancaironline.ne= t> wrote:

Are you using individual throttle body=E2= =80=99s per rotor? What=E2=80=99s manifold pressure to you  see at cold= idle? I=E2=80=99ve seen a PP pre-renesis engine idle at 18=E2=80=9DMP when c= old. Improves a little when once warmed up.

 

Bobby Hughes

 

 

From: Ro= tary motors in aircraft [mail= to:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2= 015 3:48 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [BULK= ] [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...
Importance: Low=

 

I would have to agree, from what I've heard as well over the yea= rs when turbos tend to be installed there is added complexity and issues to g= o along with it, and failures and heat etc.

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

And has been very reliable, I wasn't to concerned into runner lengths wit= h my design and made a simple plenum chamber and with the prince p tip prop s= eems to be an excellent combo.

My airstrip is at 3000 ft and I can still get airborne on a normal 25 c d= ay in 350 mtrs, 

Hope t= his helps

 <= /p>

Cheers

Sent from my iPad


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

Whenever the topic comes up a= bout adding a turbo to a Rotary I go back to what was the reasoning I used w= hen making the decision to go Rotary in the first place.

My r= easoning 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 t= he trade-off in power/complexity.

<= div>

 

I believe that a 2 rotor (using Mi= stral 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.

 

= I opted for the 3-rotor solution. Less things to go w= rong (which is important to me.)

 

T Mann

 

= --Apple-Mail-237AEC72-5FC6-4D8D-AF44-16A543A374A4--