X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2691636 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:26 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 ([24.74.103.61]) by cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com with SMTP id <20080124162248.HSIY9845.cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com@edward2> for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:22:48 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c85ea5$5caf5b70$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]To turbo or not to turbo Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:22:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003A_01C85E7B.738F7930" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C85E7B.738F7930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greg, there are a number of reasons that I believe would indicate there = are better ways to go. 1. The two turbo Rx-7 assembly weights almost as much as the 13B engine = block 2. The twin turbo set up only provides benefit if you have it in a = vehicle that needs to get from 0 to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less 3. Their reliability history even in the auto where they are not = providing boost continuously is not great. 4. The Rx-7 single turbos have proven very unsuited for aircraft use = and usually do not live long. The twin turbo is unlikely to be much = better in that usage (just my opinion) A much better way for aircraft usage is to select a single turbo = designed to provide power/boost at higher rpm. Several folks have done = so successfully - check out their installations. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Greg Ward=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:56 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]To turbo or not to turbo Has anyone tried the dual turbo installation in their AC Do they hold = up? I know they were using them in some racing applications, and I am = trying (again) to determine which is the best way to go here..... Greg Ward sorting out the pieces ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C85E7B.738F7930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greg, there are a number of reasons that I = believe would=20 indicate there are better ways to go.
 
1.  The two turbo Rx-7 assembly weights = almost as=20 much as the 13B engine block
2.  The twin turbo set up only provides = benefit if=20 you have it in a vehicle that needs to get from 0 to 60 mph in 3 seconds = or=20 less
3.   Their reliability history even in = the auto=20 where they are not providing boost continuously is not = great.
4.  The Rx-7 single turbos have proven very = unsuited=20 for aircraft use and usually do not live long.  The twin turbo is = unlikely=20 to be much better in that usage (just my opinion)
 
A much better way for aircraft usage is to = select a single=20 turbo designed to provide power/boost at higher rpm.  Several folks = have=20 done so successfully - check out their installations.
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Greg=20 Ward
Sent: Thursday, January 24, = 2008 12:56=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = [FlyRotary]To=20 turbo or not to turbo

Has anyone tried the dual turbo installation = in their=20 AC  Do they hold up?  I know they were using them in = some=20 racing applications, and I am trying (again) to determine which is the = best=20 way to go here.....
Greg Ward
sorting out the=20 pieces
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C85E7B.738F7930--