Message

Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.82] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2585917 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:18:40 -0400 Received: from o7y6b5 (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with SMTP id h8JHBB0R024318 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601c37ed1$ba6d5d60$1702a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Whats good for Racing is necessarily good for aircraft was Re: Intake questions Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:16:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C37EB0.3310F8C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C37EB0.3310F8C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Whats good for Racing is necessarily good for = aircraft was Re: Intake questions This may be just side commentary and a useless data point, but for = what it's worth here is another somewhat different comparison. Also I've = copied Jon Lauter on this because he must have some more knowledgeable = input. I have one of Jon's Rotary Power Marine engines in a boat. (Cut = that laughter right now). He rated it at 175hp and has a short manifold = to a carb just above it on the intake side of the engine (also = distributer ignition, turbo block and rotors).=20 My "dyno" comparison is with the previous engine a 150hp johnson = outboard (Will you guys cut that out?) The current installation must be = well over 100lbs heavier due to the conversion from an outboard to a = stern drive but turning only 4500 I'm the same speed as the 150 hp so I = feel pretty comfortable that should I let this get up to 6500 I'd have = that 175. Pretty scientific, I know. Hopefully Jon will respond. By the way, it is really nice cooling a boat engine! Peter I agree, Peter - Jon sells an excellent product. At one time (when = having problems with my initial 1986 block) I contacted Jon and was on = the verge of buying one for my umm errr Air Boat {:>) I have NO Doubt = that at 6500 rpm you are getting 175HP. At that RPM with a good intake = and right air/fuel mixture you could possibly get in the 190-200HP = range. However, I am willing to bet good money, that if you took that = engine and my prop and 2.17:1 gear box, you would never see 6500 rpm. = You would probably see in the 5900-6100 rpm range. =20 I repeat - there is no doubt that short fat stacks are good for High = RPM power (<7000 rpm?). But to produce that power at that RPM you have = to be able to get to that higher rpm. If you have gears or low loading = from a low pitch prop then you can probably do it. However, if you do = not have gears and have a heavy load then its likely that your will find = your load =3D your HP being produced at some point long before those = High RPMS, which if that happens - you will never see the higher rpms = and the HP they promise. Ed Anderson ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C37EB0.3310F8C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Peter = Cowan/Lexy=20 Cameron
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft

Sent: Friday, September 19, = 2003 8:13=20 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Whats = good for=20 Racing is necessarily good for aircraft was Re: Intake questions

This may be just side commentary and = a useless=20 data point, but for what it's worth here is another somewhat = different=20 comparison. Also I've copied Jon Lauter on this because he must have = some more=20 knowledgeable input. I have one of Jon's Rotary Power Marine = engines in=20 a boat. (Cut that laughter right now). He rated it at 175hp and has a = short=20 manifold to a carb just above it on the intake side of the engine = (also=20 distributer ignition, turbo block and rotors).

My "dyno" comparison is with the = previous engine=20 a 150hp johnson outboard (Will you guys cut that out?) The = current=20 installation must be well over 100lbs heavier due to the conversion = from an=20 outboard to a stern drive but turning only 4500 I'm the same speed as = the 150=20 hp so I feel pretty comfortable that should I let this get up to 6500 = I'd have=20 that 175. Pretty scientific, I know.

Hopefully Jon will = respond.

By the way, it is really nice cooling = a boat=20 engine!

Peter

I agree, Peter - Jon sells an = excellent=20 product. At one time (when having problems with my initial 1986 = block) I=20 contacted Jon and was on the verge of buying one for my umm errr Air = Boat=20 {:>) I have NO Doubt that at 6500 rpm you are getting = 175HP. At=20 that RPM with a good intake and right air/fuel mixture you could = possibly get in the 190-200HP range. However, I am willing = to bet=20 good money, that if you took that engine and my prop and 2.17:1 gear = box, you=20 would never see 6500 rpm. You would probably see in the = 5900-6100 rpm=20 range.

I repeat - there is no doubt that = short fat=20 stacks are good for High RPM power (<7000 rpm?). But to = produce=20 that power at that RPM you have to be able to get to that higher = rpm. If=20 you have gears or low loading from a low pitch prop then you can = probably do=20 it. However, if you do not have gears and have a heavy load then = its=20 likely that your will find your load =3D your HP being = produced at some=20 point long before those High RPMS, which if that happens - you will = never see=20 the higher rpms and the HP they promise.

Ed Anderson

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C37EB0.3310F8C0--