Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 3115291 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:27:59 -0500 Received: from edward (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i2NFRus2029201 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:27:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001a01c410eb$6bcde0b0$2402a8c0@edward> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1Cdrivetesting Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:27:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01C410C1.82BC5650" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C410C1.82BC5650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David, If its any consolation (probably not), I have concluded that if you = wait until all the conclusions about what is best is reached, you will = be as old and grey as I am before you finish (if you ever do). I just, = last fall, purchased a new 2.17 from Tracy convinced that the 2.85 while = it would produce more power (rpm), that the slower turning prop would = off set that so that all I would get for the switch was higher fuel burn = but very little difference in performance (except maybe for climb). = Clearly, Tracy has found the right combination (for his bird) with that = prop that makes the 2.85 a more attractive option. Besides, perhaps he = will find a way to machine out the innards of the 2.17 so we can drop in = the 2.85 internals saving at least some money {:>) Don't you love progress?? Ed Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jim Sower=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:06 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & = RD-1Cdrivetesting Man, you could be the poster child for "... DON'T BUY NUTHIN' UNTIL = YOU NEED IT .."=20 I feel your pain ... Jim S.=20 David Leonard wrote:=20 Personally I am very upset that there is a 2.85 -C drive. I mean, I = don't even have my plane flying yet and almost everything on it is out = of date. My nav/comm is 3 year out of warranty, my engine block is more = than 10 year old, my engine monitor cost too much and isn't as good as = Tracy's, the software on my EC2 is out of date, people are flying their = RV-7's while my RV-6 is still in the hangar. Even if I wanted to = upgrade to the RD-1C I couldn't because I have a 1.25 deg Left tilt to = my engine mount and half a degree in my vertical stab!!=20 So you can just fly your RD-1C to Sun-n-fun. See if I care J=20 David Leonard The Rotary Roster:=20 http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html=20 -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Tracy Crook=20 Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 8:03 AM=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C = drivetesting=20 The -C drive has very different internals but I will look at the = feasibility of reworking the -B housing to receive the -C guts. I think = it can be done. Yes, the -C bolts right up to the same adapter plate. = I think you are right about the 2.85 becoming the preferred ratio, but = only if you can handle the longer prop. You nose draggers have the = advantage here. The more I fly it the better I like this setup. The higher rpm was = very disconcerting at first but I acclimated rapidly. And now that I = have digested the fact that the actual rpm difference at normally used = throttle settings is only about 5%, I absolutely love it. Another good = sign is that the manifold pressure is now more than 5% lower at any = given airspeed that I've tested so far. Even if the wear rate is up 5% = or so it would be a non issue.=20 One more plus for the 2.85 is something I hesitate to mention. It's = kind of like the "engine making oil so I have to drain some out" thing, = kind of unbelievable. It makes sense that there would be less prop = noise but I'm also getting less engine noise.=20 I was getting tired of the increased noise with the Hushpower II = muffler and was almost ready to put the Spintech back on even though it = costs at least 5 - 6 mph in drag. But with the -C drive things have = quieted down substantially. I think part of the credit for this goes to = the difference in RPM moving the vibrations away from the resonance = point of the sheet metal panels in my RV-4 but even observers on the = ground have mentioned that the engine sounds quieter.=20 I better shut-up now, this is starting to sound too good to be true. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Anderson Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 8:30 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C = drivetesting Sounds great thus far, Tracy Imagine having so much thrust that you can't hold the aircraft = still for maximum static, must be tough {:>). If you initial = observations hold regarding fuel consumption and performance, then I = predict the 285 will soon become the standard. If the fuel = burn/performance is a wash then only engine wear from higher rpm might = be a factor, but since the rotary seems to only have no/ minimum wear in = any case, that probably will not be a significant factor. So how much are you given for 2.17:1 trade ins? Seriously, will = the B model mounting plate accommodate the C model gear box housing = (looks like you mount it the same way). I presume it would not be so = simple as swapping out the internals as I am certain the internal = mounting/housing is different in the two. Third, in case you consider = getting rid of that old performance prop, put me on top of your list. Ed --=20 Jim Sower ... Destiny's Plaything=20 Crossville, TN; Chapter 5=20 Long-EZ N83RT, Velocity N4095T=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C410C1.82BC5650 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
David,
 
    If its any = consolation (probably=20 not), I have concluded that if you wait until all the conclusions about = what is=20 best is reached, you will be as old and grey as I am before you finish = (if you=20 ever do).  I just, last fall, purchased a new 2.17 from Tracy = convinced=20 that the 2.85 while it would produce more power (rpm), that the slower = turning=20 prop would off set that so that all I would get for the switch was = higher fuel=20 burn but very little difference in performance (except maybe for = climb). =20 Clearly, Tracy has found the right combination (for his bird) with that = prop=20 that makes the 2.85 a more attractive option.  Besides, perhaps he = will=20 find a way to machine out the innards of the 2.17 so we can drop in the = 2.85=20 internals saving at least some money {:>)
 
   Don't you love = progress??
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Jim=20 Sower
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 = 10:06=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: C = mounting on a=20 B plate?? Renesis & RD-1Cdrivetesting

Man, you could be the poster child for "... DON'T BUY=20 NUTHIN' UNTIL YOU NEED IT .."=20

I feel your pain ... Jim S.=20

David Leonard wrote:=20

Personally I am = very upset that=20 there is a 2.85 =96C drive.  I mean, I don=92t even have my = plane flying=20 yet and almost everything on it is out of date.  My nav/comm is = 3 year=20 out of warranty, my engine block is more than 10 year old, my engine = monitor=20 cost too much and isn=92t as good as Tracy=92s, the software on my = EC2 is out of=20 date, people are flying their RV-7=92s while my RV-6 is still in the = hangar.  Even if I wanted to upgrade to the RD-1C I couldn=92t = because I=20 have a 1.25 deg Left tilt to my engine mount and half a degree in my = vertical stab!! 

So you can just = fly your RD-1C=20 to Sun-n-fun.  See if I care J=20

David=20 Leonard

The Rotary=20 Roster:=20

http://memb= ers.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html= =20

-----Original Message-----

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironlin= e.net] On Behalf Of Tracy=20 Crook
Sent: Monday, March 22, = 2004 8:03=20 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft =
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: C mounting on a B = plate??=20 Renesis & RD-1C drivetesting=20

The -C drive has very different internals but I will look = at the=20 feasibility of reworking the -B housing to receive the -C = guts.  I=20 think it can be done.   Yes, the -C bolts right up to the = same=20 adapter plate.  I think you are right about the 2.85 becoming = the=20 preferred ratio, but only if you can handle the longer = prop.   You=20 nose draggers have the advantage here.
The more I fly it the better I like this = setup.   The=20 higher rpm was very disconcerting at first but I acclimated=20 rapidly.   And now that I have  digested the fact = that the=20 actual rpm difference at normally used throttle settings is only = about 5%, I=20 absolutely love it. Another good sign is that the manifold pressure = is now=20 more than 5% lower at any given airspeed that I've = tested so=20 far.  Even if the wear rate is up 5% or so it would be a non=20 issue. 
One more plus for the 2.85 is something I hesitate to = mention. =20 It's kind of like the "engine making oil so I have to drain some = out" thing,=20 kind of unbelievable.   It makes sense that there would be = less=20 prop noise but I'm also getting less engine=20 noise. 
I was getting tired of the increased noise with the = Hushpower II=20 muffler and was almost ready to put the Spintech back on even though = it=20 costs at least 5 - 6 mph in drag.  But with the -C drive things = have=20 quieted down substantially.  I think part of the credit for = this goes=20 to the difference in RPM moving the vibrations away from the = resonance point=20 of the sheet metal panels in my RV-4 but even observers on the = ground have=20 mentioned that the engine sounds = quieter. 
I better shut-up now, this is starting to sound too good = to be=20 true.
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
From: = Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Monday, March = 22, 2004=20 8:30 AM
To: Rotary motors = in=20 aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] C = mounting on=20 a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C = drivetesting
Sounds great thus far, Tracy
    Imagine having so much thrust that = you can't=20 hold the aircraft still for maximum static, must be tough = {:>). =20 If you initial observations hold regarding fuel consumption and=20 performance, then I predict the 285 will soon become the = standard. =20 If the fuel burn/performance is a wash then only engine wear from = higher=20 rpm might be a factor, but since the rotary seems to only have no/ = minimum=20 wear in any case, that probably will not be a significant=20 factor.
  So how much are you given for 2.17:1 trade = ins? =20 Seriously, will the B model mounting plate accommodate the C model = gear=20 box housing (looks like you mount it the same way).  I = presume it=20 would not be so simple as swapping out the internals as I am = certain the=20 internal mounting/housing is different in the two.   = Third, in=20 case you consider getting rid of that old performance prop, put me = on top=20 of your list.
Ed

--
Jim Sower ... Destiny's Plaything
Crossville, TN; = Chapter 5=20
Long-EZ N83RT, Velocity N4095T
  =

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C410C1.82BC5650--