X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.6) with ESMTP id 1464070 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:16:20 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.33; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061013161545.XBND6235.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:15:45 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([68.2.134.48]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id ZsFp1V00112ovmC0000000 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:15:49 -0400 Message-ID: <452FBBAF.5050306@cox.net> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:15:43 -0700 From: Dale Rogers Reply-To: dale.r@cox.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] newbie References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Phil, A quick summary from one who isn't yet flying, but has done the research: By the time you've done all the work to come up with a suitable intake and exhaust system, added in a reduction drive, and installed the engine control system - all added to a custom-built engine (e.g from Bruce Turrentine) you will probably have about the same $$$ invested as you would in an after-market "experimental" Lycosaurus installation. And you'll have many more hours invested in the project. What you'll get afterward: Lower operating costs. Your engine that will run on AvGas or MoGas, or any blend thereof. Parts for a "normal" overhaul of the whole engine will cost less that two cylinders worth on the Lyc. No valves to burn, or break off (destroying the piston, etc). Lower vibration levels (which can shorten the life of other systems in your aircraft - see "lower operating costs")AFIK, no one has ever reported a broken eccentric shaft (==crankshaft) in an aviation application of the rotary. Rusty will tell you how much quicker you will get in the air with a reciprocating solution. Dale R.

Hello all,

I'm new to this group. I'm at the beginning of an RV-9A construction (working on rudder now). As I'm sure everyone does at the beginning, I've been spending a lot of time thinking ahead about hte choices I'll have to make later on. I'm very interested in the Rotary option, and have tonnes of questions. A few that come to mind initially:

1) I would probably go with a 4-port Renesis. Would most of the conversion information that is available for the older RX-7 engines be applicable to the new engines? Or would I have to solve a bunch of problems from scratch, without being able to draw much on the experience of others who have done older 13B conversions?

2) One of my biggest concerns about auto-conversions is weight. The rotary enthusiasts claim it has very low weight. The anti-auto-conversion people point out that much of the extra weight in a conversion comes from all the extra stuff you have to modify or add to make it work properly. What would the real final installed wieght of a renesis on an RV-9 be, compared with an O-320 installation (i.e. not just engine weight, but total installed weight)?

3) Power - Subaru auto conversions are popular in RVs. However, people put in Subie engines that are advertised to be 165 HP, but at the prop they develop much less power, and a popular complaint is that these aircraft end-up being slow, and under-powered. What is the case with a Rotary? If I put a Renesis on an RV-9A, would this give me as much power as an O-320? Do I need a CS prop? My strong preference is to use a FP prop.

4) Money - assuming I buy a remanufactured engine from Mazda or somewhere else (i.e. buy a remanufactured engine and not overhaul an older engine myself), how much money will I really save, after you account for all the accessories and modifications?