X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4180733 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:50:30 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.121; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=QdXCYpuVAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=ekHE3smAAAAA:20 a=UretUmmEAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=Hl1Gy0H5AAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=nUuTZ29dAAAA:8 a=C8TRCPE6B9Jmsm8gjF0A:9 a=VS1lTPvA9RiFl89rfHwA:7 a=39QNznHB_N6VRNkYh-uwz6wj-w0A:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=1vhyWl4Y8LcA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=Dp0sPuq1RBjosJXD:21 a=mcohQPiPnLmoY4Xk:21 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=nBX8D0u9Qx4HBIlRgRQA:9 a=nn12o0wOr6BMir1N9CQA:7 a=xCpyCK1LV0slqSMOVxvDNGD-lS4A:4 a=hcP9avHZLKnPXweP:21 a=rLC_s7Ls8f9gUFie:21 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 75.191.186.236 Received: from [75.191.186.236] ([75.191.186.236:1693] helo=computername) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id E0/3B-24750-1FEFDAB4; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:49:55 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" Message-ID: To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: P-Port performance Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:50:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01CACD8A.7DFACD90" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 thread-index: AcrNVmuf+F0aYp+YTjOZxzikRvVS+QAUiE9g This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01CACD8A.7DFACD90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree, Mike. It all depends on whether the set up is tuned for your regime of operation - if it is then it will probably work well, if not then disappointment. A PP designed for the all out LaManns racing circuit is not necessarily the correct one for our application - in fact, I don't see how it could be unless perhaps you have a CS prop and are going all-out racing. But, Everett did take the time and effort to develop the right parameters for aircraft use. The climb of Alan Tolen in his Hatch powered RV-4 was an awesome sight I am told. Ended up destroying the gear box - not certain but think it was a Ross unit - about the only thing available at the time that would fit under the cowl of an RV-4. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mike Wills Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:36 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: P-Port performance Ed, I hear you. Recalling the presentation Everett Hatch gave on the Powersport engine, the spent a lot of time to come up with a PP engine that was tuned for lower RPM operation. That included tweaking port timing, port/intake diameter, and length. They had something that worked pretty well. Mike Wills From: Ed Anderson Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:02 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: P-Port performance One of the things is your P porting needs to match your operating (real operating) regime. Many a person has found that because we do not have shiftable gears nor most of us constant speed props that the magic power numbers At 7500 and higher rpm may not be attainable. The reason is that you can have an overported engine that never gets past 5800 rpm. This is because at that rpm the power may not be sufficient to overcome the prop load due to poor intake performance at the lower rpm. I found out almost a decade ago that things that work in one application (like Rx-7 racing) just great - may well suck in another application. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:57 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: P-Port performance "I'm looking forward to hearing about how some of these P-Port engines work out." This is the only current flying P-Port that I know of. Same engine that Paul L. talks about that he Dyno tested at Mazdatrix. Here are a few clips from Mark Supinski's Mustang II w/ P-port 13B first flight tests. Hard to draw solid conclusions from first flight especially at that altitude but the max rpm with that small prop do not look all that good. There may be a lot more potential when things are worked out. Tracy K00V - Meadow Lakes Airport, Peyton CO OAT: 50F Winds: 5kt out of north Field Elevation: 6875 Density Altitude: 7680 Mazda 13B rotary, NA with Peripheral Porting 2.85:1 redrive, standard prop rotation Takeoff roll was 1500 feet max; Water temps throughout the climb were a chilly 178F max. Oil temps were not as kind, 197F on takeoff, 217F when departing the pattern, and 241F at 10,000 feet. Oil temps quickly dropped back to 215F on level out, Maximum rpm was around 7000 (~2450 prop). Given that our prop is only a 68x68, we would expect to be able to get to the electronics limit of 8000 On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Mike Wills wrote: George, Your right, my apologies to Bill. It did come across as pretty gruff. If you've followed previous posts of mine regarding performance I am very interested in knowing how my airplane stacks up compared with other RVs, both rotary and Lyc powered. It is hard enough (and very frustrating) when people post performance numbers at a variety of altitudes, numbers posted based on IAS or GS without accounting for environmentals, let alone numbers based on theoretical calculation. How do we respond to critics of rotary installs without accurate performance numbers? I'm sort of in the same position as Don. I believe based on his previous numbers posted that our performance is roughly equivalent. I know that my performance is currently less than optimum. I have too much prop for my current HP. I am limited by my gear ratio. I believe I am giving up some HP due to a less than ideal intake manifold. Unlike Don, I am content with current performance (for the moment). I'm looking forward to hearing about how some of these P-Port engines work out. I am considering building up a new P-port, with RD-1C, and new prop and doing a swap sometime down the road. In the past week Paul posted a synopsis of the original Powersport install in their RV-4 and Alan Tolle's RV-3. I'd forgotten how cool those setups were - it was meeting Alan and Everett Hatch that sold me on the rotary in the first place. Their Superlight engine was a work of art. My RV-4 is the best performing airplane I've ever owned. Imagine what it could do if it had another 70HP and lost 150 pounds (the Powersport RV-4 with Superlight weighed about 860). That should provide Harmon Rocket performance without having to build another airplane. Mike Wills From: George Lendich Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:25 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning Mike, Your a hard man, however I do agree with both the Mazdatrix and Powersport results and would expect their operating at optimum configuration and 100% VE. The question in my mind will we all achieve this in our less than perfect installations - probably not. I can't remember exactly but powersport was running two PP sizes, 38mm or 40mm early version and the later 44mm. I believe Bill Jepson is awaiting the results of a more recent 44mm dyno run. That 210hp may be the old 44mm HP numbers - can't remember exactly. Then again it may be the smaller inlet as they were running 6,000 for take-off RPM. A smaller PP will give greater inlet speeds reflecting in VE. George ( down under) Sorry, not buying it Bill. If you are going to quote speeds here, quote speeds, not calculated speeds based on so many variables that the end result is meaningless. That sounds like something we'd see on the other list, not here. As far as I know, Don's best reported speed is 174 IAS (and IAS is not all that meaningful either). Based on performance that Don has actually reported his performance is roughly equivalent to mine (and I'm both prop and gearing limited). His performance may have improved since he reported those numbers. In any case I'd prefer to stick to facts. Speaking of the other list, Paul has video of a PP Renesis on a dyno at Mazdatrix cranking out near 250HP @7500RPM. And he had the dyno sheet to prove it. Powersport claimed 210HP at 2700 prop RPM (their reduction ratio was around 2.2; roughly 6000 engine RPM). I believe they also had dyno data to prove it. I'm anxious to hear how Mark Stietle's PP 20B performs. Mike Wills From: Bill Bradburry Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:25 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning Mike, Don didn't report speed. I took his pitch and rpm and figured it. That speed at cruise is what he would get with no slippage or "lift" from the prop. Most of the folks with the Catto are actually getting higher speeds than would be calculated which indicates that the prop is producing "lift", not slippage. But his engine rpm with that big prop are higher than any I have seen. With the rotary, rpm = horsepower. If you aint making the rpm, you aint making the horsepower. It doesn't seem to matter what you have done to the engine.ported, PP, turbo, supercharger. If you look at the dyno charts that are all over the web, you will see that torque is pretty flat after about 4K, about 150 ft lbs. The horsepower is around 150 at 6K, maybe 180 at 7K, and 200 at 7.5K. You can get more horsepower than that, but only if you scream it up to 8K or 8.5K. All the charts I have seen are within 10 horsepower of each other at all rpms. The difference in total horsepower is always a higher max rpm. We all talk about wanting to cruise at 5800 and make 200 horsepower.it aint happening! Not with the rotary. Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mike Wills Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:17 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning Bill, I went back and looked at Don's previous post. Saw reference to climb performance, RPMs, and temps, but no speed numbers. Has he previously reported cruise speeds over 200? Last post from him that I saw with any speed numbers reported 174MPH IAS at 8000. If he's over 200 now, wow those are good numbers! Mike Wills From: Bill Bradburry Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:15 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning Those are the best numbers I have seen with anyone with a Renesis so far. In fact, I have not heard of numbers that good on any 13B. Don is getting over 200 MPH with a cruise prop and climbing at over 1400 fpm with it. The only way he is going to do better is either with an electric CS prop and/or turbo. If he shaves the prop off to say, 74", he will get a couple hundred more rpm, but will probably lose in total thrust. Diameter is a big determiner in thrust. I would like more pictures of Dons intake and exhaust! Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:05 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning 1. When I read your stats in your first paragraph, the first thought that comes to mind is that there is too much prop. Ditto. Al G __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01CACD8A.7DFACD90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree, Mike.  It all depends = on whether the set up is tuned for your regime of operation – if it is then = it will probably work well, if not then disappointment.

 

A PP designed for the all out = LaManns racing circuit is not necessarily the correct one for our application = – in fact, I don’t see how it could be unless perhaps you have a CS = prop and are going all-out racing.

 

But, Everett did take the time and effort to develop the right parameters for = aircraft use.  The climb of Alan Tolen in his Hatch powered RV-4 was an = awesome sight I am told.  Ended up destroying the gear box – not certain = but think it was a Ross unit – about the only thing available at the time = that would fit under the cowl of an RV-4.

 

Ed

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mike = Wills
Sent: Friday, March 26, = 2010 10:36 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = P-Port performance

 

Ed,

 

 I hear you. Recalling the presentation = Everett Hatch gave on the Powersport engine, the spent a lot of time to come up with a = PP engine that was tuned for lower RPM operation. That included tweaking = port timing, port/intake diameter, and length. They had something that worked = pretty well.

 

Mike Wills

 

From: Ed Anderson

Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:02 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: P-Port performance

 

One of the things is your P porting = needs to match your operating (real operating) = regime.

 

Many a person has found that = because we do not have shiftable gears nor most of us constant speed props that the = magic power numbers

At 7500 and higher rpm may not be attainable.  The reason is that you can have an overported engine = that never gets past 5800 rpm.  This is because at that rpm the power = may not be sufficient to overcome the prop load due to poor intake performance = at the lower rpm.

 

I found out almost a decade ago = that things that work in one application (like Rx-7 racing) just great - may = well suck in another application.

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Friday, March 26, = 2010 1:57 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = P-Port performance

 

"I'= m looking forward to hearing about how some of these P-Port engines work = out."

This is the only current flying P-Port that I know of.   Same = engine that Paul L. talks about that he Dyno tested at Mazdatrix.  Here are a = few clips from Mark Supinski's Mustang II w/ P-port 13B first flight tests.   Hard to draw solid conclusions from first flight = especially at that altitude  but the max rpm with that small prop do not look = all that good.  There may be a lot more potential when things are  = worked out.

Tracy


K00V - Meadow Lakes Airport, Peyton CO
OAT:   50F
Winds: 5kt out of north
Field Elevation: 6875
Density Altitude: 7680
Mazda 13B rotary, NA with Peripheral Porting
2.85:1 redrive, standard prop rotation

 Takeoff
roll was 1500 feet max;

Water temps throughout the climb were a chilly 178F max.
 Oil temps were not as kind, 197F on takeoff, 217F when departing = the
pattern, and 241F at 10,000 feet.  Oil temps quickly dropped back = to
215F on level out,
 
 Maximum rpm was around
7000 (~2450 prop).  Given that our prop is only a 68x68, we = would
expect to be able to get to the electronics limit of 8000

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Mike Wills <rv-4mike@cox.net> = wrote:

George,

 

Your right, my apologies to Bill. It did come = across as pretty gruff. If you've followed previous posts of mine regarding = performance I am very interested in knowing how my airplane stacks up compared with = other RVs, both rotary and Lyc powered. It is hard enough (and very = frustrating) when people post performance numbers at a variety of altitudes, numbers = posted based on IAS or GS without accounting for environmentals, let alone numbers = based on theoretical calculation. How do we respond to critics of rotary installs without accurate performance numbers?

 

I'm sort of in the same position as Don. I believe = based on his previous numbers posted that our performance is roughly = equivalent. I know that my performance is currently less than optimum. I have too much = prop for my current HP. I am limited by my gear ratio. I believe I am giving = up some HP due to a less than ideal intake manifold. Unlike Don, I am content = with current performance (for the moment).

 

I'm looking forward to hearing about how some of = these P-Port engines work out. I am considering building up a new P-port, with = RD-1C, and new prop and doing a swap sometime down the road. In the past week = Paul posted a synopsis of the original Powersport install in their RV-4 and = Alan Tolle's RV-3. I'd forgotten how cool those setups were - it was meeting = Alan and Everett Hatch that sold me on the rotary in the first place. Their Superlight engine was a work of art. My RV-4 is the best performing = airplane I've ever owned. Imagine what it could do if it had another 70HP and = lost 150 pounds (the Powersport RV-4 with Superlight weighed about 860). That = should provide Harmon Rocket performance without having to build another = airplane.

 

Mike Wills

 

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:25 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

 

Mike,

Your a hard man, however I do agree with both = the Mazdatrix and Powersport results and would expect their operating at = optimum configuration and 100% VE.

 

The question in my mind will we all achieve this in = our less than perfect installations - probably not.

 

I can't remember exactly but powersport was running = two PP sizes, 38mm or 40mm early version and the later 44mm. I believe = Bill Jepson is awaiting the results of a more recent = 44mm dyno run. That 210hp may be the old 44mm HP numbers - can't remember exactly. Then = again it may be the smaller inlet as they were running 6,000 for take-off RPM. = A smaller PP will give greater inlet speeds reflecting in = VE.

George ( down under)

Sorry, not buying it Bill. If you are going to = quote speeds here, quote speeds, not calculated speeds based on so many = variables that the end result is meaningless. That sounds like something we'd see = on the other list, not here. As far as I know, Don's best reported speed is 174 = IAS (and IAS is not all that meaningful either). Based on performance = that Don has actually reported his performance is roughly equivalent to mine = (and I'm both prop and gearing limited). His performance may have = improved since he reported those numbers. In any case I'd prefer to stick to = facts.

 

Speaking of the other list, Paul has video of = a PP Renesis on a dyno  at Mazdatrix cranking out near 250HP @7500RPM. = And he had the dyno sheet to prove it. Powersport claimed 210HP at 2700 prop = RPM (their reduction ratio was around 2.2; roughly 6000 engine RPM). I = believe they also had dyno data to prove it. I'm anxious to hear how Mark = Stietle's PP 20B performs.

 

Mike Wills

 

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:25 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

 

Mike,

Don = didn’t report speed.  I took his pitch and rpm and figured it.  That = speed at cruise is what he would get with no slippage or “lift” = from the prop.  Most of the folks with the Catto are actually getting higher = speeds than would be calculated which indicates that the prop is producing “lift”, not slippage. 

 

But = his engine rpm with that big prop are higher than any I have seen.  With the = rotary, rpm =3D horsepower.  If you aint making the rpm, you aint making the horsepower.  It doesn’t seem to matter what you have done to = the engine…ported, PP, turbo, supercharger.  If you look at the dyno charts that are = all over the web, you will see that torque is pretty flat after about 4K, about = 150 ft lbs.  The horsepower is around 150 at 6K, maybe 180 at 7K, and 200 = at 7.5K.  You can get more horsepower than that, but only if you scream it up to = 8K  or 8.5K.  All the charts I have seen are within 10 horsepower of = each other at all rpms.  The difference in total horsepower is always a = higher max rpm.

 

We = all talk about wanting to cruise at 5800 and make 200 horsepower…it aint happening!  Not with the rotary.

 

Bill = B

 

From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mike = Wills
Sent: Thursday, March 25, = 2010 1:17 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Turbo Planning

Bill,

 

I went back and looked at Don's previous post. Saw reference to climb = performance, RPMs, and temps, but no speed numbers. Has he previously reported cruise = speeds over 200? Last post from him that I saw with any speed numbers reported = 174MPH IAS at 8000. If he's over 200 now, wow those are good = numbers!

 

Mike Wills

 

From: Bill Bradburry =

Sent: = Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:15 PM

Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning

 

Those = are the best numbers I have seen with anyone with a Renesis so far.  In fact, I = have not heard of numbers that good on any 13B.  Don is getting over 200 = MPH with a cruise prop and climbing at over 1400 fpm with it.  The only = way he is going to do better is either with an electric CS prop and/or = turbo.  If he shaves the prop off to say, 74”, he will get a couple hundred = more rpm, but will probably lose in total thrust.  Diameter is a big = determiner in thrust. 

 

I = would like more pictures of Dons intake and exhaust!

 

Bill = B

 

From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al = Gietzen
Sent: Wednesday, March = 24, 2010 3:05 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Turbo Planning

1. When I read your stats in your first paragraph, the first thought = that

comes to mind is that there is too much prop.  =

 

Ditto.

 

Al G

 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_0044_01CACD8A.7DFACD90--