Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:12 AM - Re: Ford V-6 (Scott Bilinski)
2. 07:01 AM - Re: Ford V-6 (Ed Anderson)
3. 07:42 AM - new rotary engine (Mark A. Wood)
4. 08:31 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (Konrad Werner)
5. 09:18 AM - Re: new rotary engine (Ed Anderson)
6. 09:21 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (Ed Anderson)
7. 09:23 AM - Re: new rotary engine (terence.gannon@telus.net)
8. 09:35 AM - Re: Ford V-6 (tony webster)
9. 09:35 AM - Re: Ford V-6 (tony webster)
10. 09:35 AM - Re: new rotary engine (tony webster)
11. 09:36 AM - Re: new rotary engine (tony webster)
12. 09:37 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (tony webster)
13. 09:37 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (tony webster)
14. 09:37 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (tony webster)
15. 09:37 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (tony webster)
16. 09:37 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (tony webster)
17. 09:37 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (tony webster)
18. 09:42 AM - Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary (Konrad Werner)
19. 10:24 AM - Re: new rotary engine (Scott Bilinski)
20. 10:36 AM - Re: Rotary conversion lists, please (CardinalNSB@aol.com)
21. 10:46 AM - Re: new rotary engine (Ed Anderson)
22. 12:55 PM - Re: new rotary engine (terence.gannon@telus.net)
23. 03:50 PM - Re: new rotary engine (Ed Anderson)
24. 04:03 PM - Re: new rotary engine (Scott Bilinski)
25. 04:49 PM - Re: Electronic engine control (n1lm)
26. 05:15 PM - Re: Re: Electronic engine control (Tedd McHenry)
27. 06:28 PM - Re: Re: Electronic engine control (n1lm)
28. 06:48 PM - Re: new rotary engine (Ed Anderson)
29. 06:55 PM - Re: Re: Electronic engine control (Ed Anderson)
30. 06:56 PM - Re: new rotary engine (Tracy Crook)
31. 06:59 PM - Re: Re: Electronic engine control (Tracy Crook)
32. 08:02 PM - IO360...what's it worth? (Tom)
33. 08:27 PM - Lycoming IO-540-K Wanted for Rebuild (ckohn)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config it
will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los Angeles
was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing about
Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this year?
At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
>
>I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion :-)
>
>What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that aren't
>imaginable on the ground vehicles?
>
>Sales pitch for the 13B:
>I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving parts
>than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can compete with
>the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
>perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
>conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM = 5500),
>than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
>
>I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of material.
>However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable future
>(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by offering
>engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
>
>Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be intrigued
>with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner Subaru
>prices, I would have already submitted my order!
>
>As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every time the
>wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the current
engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake ports
are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases retained
due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the power
train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP as
the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary is
not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger or
radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range =840 miles, a nice little increase.
I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config it
> will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los Angeles
> was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing about
> Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this year?
>
>
> At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> >
> >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion :-)
> >
> >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
aren't
> >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> >
> >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
parts
> >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can compete
with
> >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM 5500),
> >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> >
> >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of material.
> >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable future
> >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
offering
> >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> >
> >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
intrigued
> >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner Subaru
> >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> >
> >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every time
the
> >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood" <Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good to
be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to airplane
connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
demolition derby with them???
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
>
> Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
>Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the current
>engine.
>What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary is
>not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger or
>radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
>adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range =840 miles, a nice little increase.
>
>I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
>
>Ed Anderson
>RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
>Matthews, NC
>eanderson@carolina.rr.com
--
Mark Wood
Assistive Technology Consultant, VT I-Team
Center on Disability and Community Inclusion
University of Vermont
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
Dear Ed,
"... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840
miles, a nice little increase."
Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
Konrad
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the current
engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake ports
are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases retained
due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the power
train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP as
the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary is
not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger or
radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config it
> will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los Angeles
> was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing about
> Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this year?
>
>
> At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> >
> >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion :-)
> >
> >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
aren't
> >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> >
> >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
parts
> >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can compete
with
> >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM 5500),
> >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> >
> >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of material.
> >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable future
> >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
offering
> >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> >
> >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
intrigued
> >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner Subaru
> >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> >
> >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every time
the
> >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
I think we can count on it, Mark. Mazda does not appear to have misled on
engine performance in the past (at least on the rotary). The actually fuel
burn of the current rotary is slightly better than an air cooled aircraft
engine in some regimes of operation, but not as good as a good auto piston
engine. But, now with the new engine it will do considerably better.
Good idea about the kids {:>). Actually, I have already found a source for
a brand new crated Renese engine at around $6000 from Australia (plus
shipping). But, since my current rotary is doing well, I can't really
justify (to my wife at least) popping that much for the new one at this
time -now, if I won the lottery {:>)
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood" <Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
>
> It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good to
> be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to airplane
> connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
> compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
> I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
> to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
> handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
> demolition derby with them???
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
By using poor math, Konrad. As you indicate, it should be 900 miles vice
750 miles.
Thanks,
Ed
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
>
> Dear Ed,
> "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile
range 840 miles, a nice little increase."
>
> Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
>
> It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
>
> Konrad
> Do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Anderson
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
>
> Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the
current
> engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake
ports
> are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases
retained
> due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the
power
> train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP
as
> the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
>
> What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary
is
> not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger
or
> radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
>
> I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
>
> Ed Anderson
> RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config
it
> > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los
Angeles
> > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing
about
> > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this
year?
> >
> >
> > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > >
> > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion
:-)
> > >
> > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> aren't
> > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > >
> > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> parts
> > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can
compete
> with
> > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM
5500),
> > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > >
> > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of
material.
> > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable
future
> > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> offering
> > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > >
> > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> intrigued
> > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner
Subaru
> > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > >
> > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every
time
> the
> > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Scott Bilinski
> > Eng dept 305
> > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > Pager (858) 502-5190
> >
> >
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: terence.gannon@telus.net
Ed, could you provide a little more info on the Renese source in Australia --
a web site perhaps? Sounds interesting...thanx...
Terry in Calgary
RV-6 S/N 24414
"Wings"
Quoting Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> I think we can count on it, Mark. Mazda does not appear to have misled on
> engine performance in the past (at least on the rotary). The actually fuel
> burn of the current rotary is slightly better than an air cooled aircraft
> engine in some regimes of operation, but not as good as a good auto piston
> engine. But, now with the new engine it will do considerably better.
>
> Good idea about the kids {:>). Actually, I have already found a source for
> a brand new crated Renese engine at around $6000 from Australia (plus
> shipping). But, since my current rotary is doing well, I can't really
> justify (to my wife at least) popping that much for the new one at this
> time -now, if I won the lottery {:>)
>
> Ed Anderson
> RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config it
> will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los Angeles
> was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing about
> Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this year?
>
> At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> >
> >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion :-)
> >
> >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that aren't
> >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> >
> >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving parts
> >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can compete with
> >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM = 5500),
> >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> >
> >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of material.
> >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable future
> >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by offering
> >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> >
> >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be intrigued
> >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner Subaru
> >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> >
> >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every time the
> >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> >
> >
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the current
> engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake ports
> are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases retained
> due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the power
> train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP as
> the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
>
> What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary is
> not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger or
> radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range =840 miles, a nice little increase.
>
> I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
>
> Ed Anderson
> RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config it
> > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los Angeles
> > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing about
> > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this year?
> >
> >
> > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > >
> > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion :-)
> > >
> > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> aren't
> > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > >
> > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> parts
> > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can compete
> with
> > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM 5500),
> > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > >
> > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of material.
> > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable future
> > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> offering
> > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > >
> > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> intrigued
> > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner Subaru
> > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > >
> > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every time
> the
> > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Scott Bilinski
> > Eng dept 305
> > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > Pager (858) 502-5190
> >
> >
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Mark A. Wood wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood" <Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
>
> It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good to
> be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to airplane
> connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
> compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
> I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
> to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
> handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
> demolition derby with them???
>
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> >Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the current
> >engine.
>
> >What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary is
> >not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger or
> >radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> >adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range =840 miles, a nice little increase.
> >
> >I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
> >
> >Ed Anderson
> >RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> >Matthews, NC
> >eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
> --
> Mark Wood
> Assistive Technology Consultant, VT I-Team
> Center on Disability and Community Inclusion
> University of Vermont
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Mark A. Wood wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood" <Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
>
> It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good to
> be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to airplane
> connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
> compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
> I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
> to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
> handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
> demolition derby with them???
>
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> >Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the current
> >engine.
>
> >What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary is
> >not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger or
> >radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> >adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range =840 miles, a nice little increase.
> >
> >I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
> >
> >Ed Anderson
> >RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> >Matthews, NC
> >eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
> --
> Mark Wood
> Assistive Technology Consultant, VT I-Team
> Center on Disability and Community Inclusion
> University of Vermont
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Konrad Werner wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
>
> Dear Ed,
> "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840
miles, a nice little increase."
>
> Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
>
> It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
>
> Konrad
> Do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Anderson
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the current
> engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake ports
> are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases retained
> due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the power
> train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP as
> the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
>
> What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary is
> not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger or
> radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
>
> I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
>
> Ed Anderson
> RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config it
> > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los Angeles
> > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing about
> > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this year?
> >
> >
> > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > >
> > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion :-)
> > >
> > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> aren't
> > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > >
> > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> parts
> > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can compete
> with
> > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM 5500),
> > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > >
> > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of material.
> > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable future
> > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> offering
> > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > >
> > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> intrigued
> > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner Subaru
> > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > >
> > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every time
> the
> > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Scott Bilinski
> > Eng dept 305
> > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > Pager (858) 502-5190
> >
> >
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> By using poor math, Konrad. As you indicate, it should be 900 miles vice
> 750 miles.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
> >
> > Dear Ed,
> > "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile
> range 840 miles, a nice little increase."
> >
> > Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
> >
> > It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
> >
> > Konrad
> > Do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ed Anderson
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
> >
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> > Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the
> current
> > engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> > periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake
> ports
> > are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> > combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> > precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases
> retained
> > due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> > The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the
> power
> > train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> > higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP
> as
> > the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
> >
> > What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary
> is
> > not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger
> or
> > radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> > adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
> >
> > I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
> >
> > Ed Anderson
> > RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> > Matthews, NC
> > eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> >
> >
> > > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> > >
> > > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config
> it
> > > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los
> Angeles
> > > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing
> about
> > > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this
> year?
> > >
> > >
> > > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion
> :-)
> > > >
> > > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> > aren't
> > > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > > >
> > > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> > parts
> > > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can
> compete
> > with
> > > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM
> 5500),
> > > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > > >
> > > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of
> material.
> > > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable
> future
> > > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> > offering
> > > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > > >
> > > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> > intrigued
> > > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner
> Subaru
> > > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > > >
> > > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every
> time
> > the
> > > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Bilinski
> > > Eng dept 305
> > > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > > Pager (858) 502-5190
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> By using poor math, Konrad. As you indicate, it should be 900 miles vice
> 750 miles.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
> >
> > Dear Ed,
> > "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile
> range 840 miles, a nice little increase."
> >
> > Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
> >
> > It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
> >
> > Konrad
> > Do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ed Anderson
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
> >
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> > Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the
> current
> > engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> > periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake
> ports
> > are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> > combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> > precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases
> retained
> > due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> > The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the
> power
> > train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> > higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP
> as
> > the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
> >
> > What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary
> is
> > not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger
> or
> > radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> > adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
> >
> > I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
> >
> > Ed Anderson
> > RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> > Matthews, NC
> > eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> >
> >
> > > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> > >
> > > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config
> it
> > > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los
> Angeles
> > > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing
> about
> > > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this
> year?
> > >
> > >
> > > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion
> :-)
> > > >
> > > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> > aren't
> > > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > > >
> > > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> > parts
> > > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can
> compete
> > with
> > > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM
> 5500),
> > > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > > >
> > > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of
> material.
> > > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable
> future
> > > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> > offering
> > > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > > >
> > > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> > intrigued
> > > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner
> Subaru
> > > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > > >
> > > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every
> time
> > the
> > > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Bilinski
> > > Eng dept 305
> > > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > > Pager (858) 502-5190
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> By using poor math, Konrad. As you indicate, it should be 900 miles vice
> 750 miles.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
> >
> > Dear Ed,
> > "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile
> range 840 miles, a nice little increase."
> >
> > Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
> >
> > It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
> >
> > Konrad
> > Do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ed Anderson
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
> >
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> > Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the
> current
> > engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> > periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake
> ports
> > are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> > combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> > precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases
> retained
> > due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> > The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the
> power
> > train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> > higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP
> as
> > the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
> >
> > What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary
> is
> > not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger
> or
> > radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> > adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
> >
> > I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
> >
> > Ed Anderson
> > RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> > Matthews, NC
> > eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> >
> >
> > > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> > >
> > > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config
> it
> > > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los
> Angeles
> > > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing
> about
> > > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this
> year?
> > >
> > >
> > > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion
> :-)
> > > >
> > > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> > aren't
> > > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > > >
> > > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> > parts
> > > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can
> compete
> > with
> > > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM
> 5500),
> > > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > > >
> > > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of
> material.
> > > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable
> future
> > > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> > offering
> > > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > > >
> > > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> > intrigued
> > > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner
> Subaru
> > > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > > >
> > > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every
> time
> > the
> > > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Bilinski
> > > Eng dept 305
> > > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > > Pager (858) 502-5190
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> By using poor math, Konrad. As you indicate, it should be 900 miles vice
> 750 miles.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
> >
> > Dear Ed,
> > "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile
> range 840 miles, a nice little increase."
> >
> > Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
> >
> > It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
> >
> > Konrad
> > Do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ed Anderson
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
> >
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> > Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the
> current
> > engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> > periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake
> ports
> > are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> > combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> > precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases
> retained
> > due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> > The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the
> power
> > train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> > higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP
> as
> > the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
> >
> > What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary
> is
> > not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger
> or
> > radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> > adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
> >
> > I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
> >
> > Ed Anderson
> > RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> > Matthews, NC
> > eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> >
> >
> > > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> > >
> > > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config
> it
> > > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los
> Angeles
> > > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing
> about
> > > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this
> year?
> > >
> > >
> > > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion
> :-)
> > > >
> > > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> > aren't
> > > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > > >
> > > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> > parts
> > > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can
> compete
> > with
> > > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM
> 5500),
> > > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > > >
> > > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of
> material.
> > > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable
> future
> > > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> > offering
> > > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > > >
> > > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> > intrigued
> > > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner
> Subaru
> > > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > > >
> > > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every
> time
> > the
> > > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Bilinski
> > > Eng dept 305
> > > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > > Pager (858) 502-5190
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: tony webster <caw@nctc.com>
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> By using poor math, Konrad. As you indicate, it should be 900 miles vice
> 750 miles.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
> >
> > Dear Ed,
> > "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile
> range 840 miles, a nice little increase."
> >
> > Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
> >
> > It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
> >
> > Konrad
> > Do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ed Anderson
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
> >
> >
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> > Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> > Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the
> current
> > engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> > periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake
> ports
> > are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> > combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> > precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases
> retained
> > due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> > The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the
> power
> > train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> > higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP
> as
> > the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
> >
> > What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary
> is
> > not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger
> or
> > radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> > adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
> >
> > I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
> >
> > Ed Anderson
> > RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> > Matthews, NC
> > eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> >
> >
> > > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> > >
> > > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config
> it
> > > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los
> Angeles
> > > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing
> about
> > > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this
> year?
> > >
> > >
> > > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion
> :-)
> > > >
> > > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> > aren't
> > > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > > >
> > > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> > parts
> > > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can
> compete
> > with
> > > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM
> 5500),
> > > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > > >
> > > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of
> material.
> > > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable
> future
> > > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> > offering
> > > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > > >
> > > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> > intrigued
> > > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner
> Subaru
> > > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > > >
> > > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every
> time
> > the
> > > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Bilinski
> > > Eng dept 305
> > > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > > Pager (858) 502-5190
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ford V-6 to Rotary |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
Aha! That adds up much better now. Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6 to Rotary
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
By using poor math, Konrad. As you indicate, it should be 900 miles vice
750 miles.
Thanks,
Ed
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
>
> Dear Ed,
> "... 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile
range 840 miles, a nice little increase."
>
> Question: How do you calculate 20% of 750mls to become a gain of 90 miles?
>
> It sounds like another great rotary motor is coming.
>
> Konrad
> Do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Anderson
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford V-6
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
>
> Quite right, Scott. The new Renese rotary engine due to debute in the
> Mazda RX-8 sports car this year is an evolutionary advance over the
current
> engine. Most significant difference is moving the exhaust port from the
> periphery of the rotor housing to the side housing where the intake
ports
> are located. This apparently gave better engine efficiency as the
> combustion gases were 1. contained longer for more power recover and 2.
> precluded dilution of the new intake charge by the exhaust gases
retained
> due to the overlap between the intake and exhaust port.
> The second thing was lighter rotors and more precise balancing of the
power
> train. This increase the rpm limits of the engine to 9000 rpm and this
> higher reving capability accounts for its ability to generate as much HP
as
> the previous rotary engine (13B) with a turbocharger.
>
> What is particularly interesting to those of us flying behind the rotary
is
> not only the increased power (without the complexity of a turbocharger
or
> radical porting) is the reportedly 20% better fuel efficiency. I mean
> adding 20% to an RVs 750 mile range 840 miles, a nice little increase.
>
> I want the first RX-8 that gets rear ended
>
> Ed Anderson
> RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > Mazda is coming out with a new version of the 13B. In its stock config
it
> > will put out....what was it..... about 250+ HP. Racing Beat in Los
Angeles
> > was going to develop a rotary engine for aircraft but after hearing
about
> > Mazda's new engine they stopped until it will be available.....this
year?
> >
> >
> > At 06:26 PM 6/11/03 -0600, you wrote:
> > >--> Engines-List message posted by: John Burns <jgburns@comcast.net>
> > >
> > >I'm no expert. However, that never stop me from having an opinion
:-)
> > >
> > >What's the philosophy behind running a Ford V-6 at constant RPMs that
> aren't
> > >imaginable on the ground vehicles?
> > >
> > >Sales pitch for the 13B:
> > >I think the Mazda engine has a following because it has fewer moving
> parts
> > >than a piston engine, puts out more H.P. per liter, and it can
compete
> with
> > >the 0-360 (weight and power). Oh, the most important reason from my
> > >perspective: it seems more reasonable to trust an automobile engine
> > >conversion with 2 rotors spinning at 1833 RPM (eccentric shaft RPM
5500),
> > >than trusting 6 pistons doing 5500 round trips for the same RPM.
> > >
> > >I've been considering the 13B for a year and reading a lot of
material.
> > >However, I'm not convinced I'll get it flying in the foreseeable
future
> > >(although other builders have made it easier for the rest of us by
> offering
> > >engine mounts, reduction drives, ECU ...).
> > >
> > >Even if I don't go for it (the 13B installation), I'll always be
> intrigued
> > >with the idea. BTW, if a FWF package was offered at Eggenfellner
Subaru
> > >prices, I would have already submitted my order!
> > >
> > >As for a Ford V-6 under the cowl, I'd be hearing ghost noises every
time
> the
> > >wheels left the ground - that'd be a joy killer.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Scott Bilinski
> > Eng dept 305
> > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > Pager (858) 502-5190
> >
> >
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I imagine it will only put out max power with the factory engine management
system intact?
At 12:25 PM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> I think we can count on it, Mark. Mazda does not appear to have misled on
>engine performance in the past (at least on the rotary). The actually fuel
>burn of the current rotary is slightly better than an air cooled aircraft
>engine in some regimes of operation, but not as good as a good auto piston
>engine. But, now with the new engine it will do considerably better.
>
>Good idea about the kids {:>). Actually, I have already found a source for
>a brand new crated Renese engine at around $6000 from Australia (plus
>shipping). But, since my current rotary is doing well, I can't really
>justify (to my wife at least) popping that much for the new one at this
>time -now, if I won the lottery {:>)
>
>Ed Anderson
>RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
>Matthews, NC
>eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood" <Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
>>
>> It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good to
>> be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to airplane
>> connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
>> compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
>> I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
>> to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
>> handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
>> demolition derby with them???
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotary conversion lists, please |
--> Engines-List message posted by: CardinalNSB@aol.com
Ed Anderson, would you please post or privately email the lists for the rotary
conversions you know of. Thanks, Skip Simpson
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Hi Terry,
I'll contact my friend and see whether he has any objection about me
revealing to you his offer. I am fairly certain he won't care, but just
wouldn't want to put him in a difficult position in case that is something
he would not prefer to see widely distributed.
Ed Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: <terence.gannon@telus.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: new rotary engine
> --> Engines-List message posted by: terence.gannon@telus.net
>
> Ed, could you provide a little more info on the Renese source in
Australia --
> a web site perhaps? Sounds interesting...thanx...
>
> Terry in Calgary
> RV-6 S/N 24414
> "Wings"
>
> Quoting Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> > <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> > I think we can count on it, Mark. Mazda does not appear to have misled
on
> > engine performance in the past (at least on the rotary). The actually
fuel
> > burn of the current rotary is slightly better than an air cooled
aircraft
> > engine in some regimes of operation, but not as good as a good auto
piston
> > engine. But, now with the new engine it will do considerably better.
> >
> > Good idea about the kids {:>). Actually, I have already found a source
for
> > a brand new crated Renese engine at around $6000 from Australia (plus
> > shipping). But, since my current rotary is doing well, I can't really
> > justify (to my wife at least) popping that much for the new one at this
> > time -now, if I won the lottery {:>)
> >
> > Ed Anderson
> > RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> > Matthews, NC
> > eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: terence.gannon@telus.net
Ed -- that's sounds *entirely* reasonable. It's less a matter of wanting to
actually place an order, but rather, getting some technical information that
could be used in some sort of aviation-related adaptation. Perhaps there is
an even better site for said information??
Quoting Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Hi Terry,
>
> I'll contact my friend and see whether he has any objection about me
> revealing to you his offer. I am fairly certain he won't care, but just
> wouldn't want to put him in a difficult position in case that is something
> he would not prefer to see widely distributed.
>
> Ed Anderson
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Not necessairly, Scott. The 13B model that is commonly used in aircraft
today is only rated at 146HP in the automobile, but will produce 160HP with
almost no changes except to remove some of the emission restrictive
features. With a street port job and a free intake several have produced
over 180 HP reliably. The wide torque range necessary for an automobile is
not needed for an aircraft (particularly the low rpm torque), so that frees
you up to consider only the airflow needs at the higher rpms (and of course
that is where the most power is produced).
We will have to wait until we get our hands on one of the new engines.
However, 250 HP at the same weight as today's 13B will make a big
difference! Heck, even if it only produced 225HP without a turbo that would
be a big advantage. But of course, if you are going to produce 250 HP your
fuel burn is going to go way up (even with the 20% better fuel efficiency).
The Renese has some new features that contribute to this better fuel economy
which might not compatible with aircraft use, but we will need to get our
hands on one to find out.
Ed
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> I imagine it will only put out max power with the factory engine
management
> system intact?
>
>
> At 12:25 PM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> > I think we can count on it, Mark. Mazda does not appear to have misled
on
> >engine performance in the past (at least on the rotary). The actually
fuel
> >burn of the current rotary is slightly better than an air cooled aircraft
> >engine in some regimes of operation, but not as good as a good auto
piston
> >engine. But, now with the new engine it will do considerably better.
> >
> >Good idea about the kids {:>). Actually, I have already found a source
for
> >a brand new crated Renese engine at around $6000 from Australia (plus
> >shipping). But, since my current rotary is doing well, I can't really
> >justify (to my wife at least) popping that much for the new one at this
> >time -now, if I won the lottery {:>)
> >
> >Ed Anderson
> >RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> >Matthews, NC
> >eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> >
> >
> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood" <Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
> >>
> >> It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good to
> >> be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to airplane
> >> connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
> >> compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
> >> I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
> >> to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
> >> handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
> >> demolition derby with them???
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Am quite familiar with the Rotary. Had (years ago) a road race RX-2 with
13B, 1/4 mile, 13.7 @ 110. Did the engine work myself. The only reason I
mentioned the computer is that today. the only way to get good HP is with
one.........At least Im pretty sure of that after talking to the local hot
rod shop about building a V6 for the RV.
At 06:56 PM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
>
>Not necessairly, Scott. The 13B model that is commonly used in aircraft
>today is only rated at 146HP in the automobile, but will produce 160HP with
>almost no changes except to remove some of the emission restrictive
>features. With a street port job and a free intake several have produced
>over 180 HP reliably. The wide torque range necessary for an automobile is
>not needed for an aircraft (particularly the low rpm torque), so that frees
>you up to consider only the airflow needs at the higher rpms (and of course
>that is where the most power is produced).
>
>We will have to wait until we get our hands on one of the new engines.
>However, 250 HP at the same weight as today's 13B will make a big
>difference! Heck, even if it only produced 225HP without a turbo that would
>be a big advantage. But of course, if you are going to produce 250 HP your
>fuel burn is going to go way up (even with the 20% better fuel efficiency).
>The Renese has some new features that contribute to this better fuel economy
>which might not compatible with aircraft use, but we will need to get our
>hands on one to find out.
>
>Ed
>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>>
>> I imagine it will only put out max power with the factory engine
>management
>> system intact?
>>
>>
>> At 12:25 PM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote:
>> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
><eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>> >
>> > I think we can count on it, Mark. Mazda does not appear to have misled
>on
>> >engine performance in the past (at least on the rotary). The actually
>fuel
>> >burn of the current rotary is slightly better than an air cooled aircraft
>> >engine in some regimes of operation, but not as good as a good auto
>piston
>> >engine. But, now with the new engine it will do considerably better.
>> >
>> >Good idea about the kids {:>). Actually, I have already found a source
>for
>> >a brand new crated Renese engine at around $6000 from Australia (plus
>> >shipping). But, since my current rotary is doing well, I can't really
>> >justify (to my wife at least) popping that much for the new one at this
>> >time -now, if I won the lottery {:>)
>> >
>> >Ed Anderson
>> >RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
>> >Matthews, NC
>> >eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>> >
>> >
>> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood" <Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
>> >>
>> >> It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good to
>> >> be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to airplane
>> >> connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
>> >> compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
>> >> I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
>> >> to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
>> >> handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
>> >> demolition derby with them???
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Scott Bilinski
>> Eng dept 305
>> Phone (858) 657-2536
>> Pager (858) 502-5190
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic engine control |
--> Engines-List message posted by: n1lm <n1lm@concentric.net>
Hi folks,
I am new to this list. When I first bought a Ford Mustang with computerized
engine control, I took one look under the hood and said My days of working on cars
are
over. After reading a few books on the system, I think it is wonderful. Remove
a few
smog goodies. and modify a few others, you will have the nicest running aircraft
engine. I should automatically take care of leaning. I have had several now with
out a
failure. I have a Toyota truck with a complete 5.0 liter Mustang engine with
electronics. The engine has a mild cam. I also Have a Mustang I am building with
A
351 V8 Twin turboed with modified Ford Electronics. I say this to say that the
EEC4
is a very forgiving engine control system.
I am wondering if it has been put to use by Mazda.
Lisa Marie
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic engine control |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
I have mixed feelings about auto engine control systems. On the one hand, they
are very reliable and provide very accurate engine control. On the other hand,
they can lead to sudden engine stoppage without warning.
My 1985 VW Jetta simply refused to start one day when the ignition module died.
It had about 200,000 km on it at the time. My 1990 Toyota Corolla died while
cruising down the road one day when the combined distributor-coil unit died, at
about 280,000 km. In both cases there were no symptoms (that I noticed) prior
to the failure.
They were both pretty old, in aircraft terms. At an average speed of 50 km/h
the Jetta would have had 4,000 hours on the clock and the Toyota about 5,600
hours. Still, the fact that they were sudden, catastrophic (in aviation terms)
failures is disconcerting.
My experience in reliability analysis is in mechanical systems, not electronic.
However, my understanding is that electronic failures tend to be random, i.e.
the probability of failure is fairly constant throughout the service life, as
opposed to mechanical failures where the probability typcially increases with
time. This suggests that the fact that these components will be used for fewer
hours in an aircraft application doesn't necessarily reduce the probability of
failure, per hour of flight.
---
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic engine control |
--> Engines-List message posted by: n1lm <n1lm@concentric.net>
I have repaired electrical problems on several Fords. Rarely does the system just
die. The driver might not notice that something is wrong, because most of these
systems have a limp home mode. I have a plug in tester that tells you what is
currently wrong. It also tells what has malfunctioned recently. I think this tester
could be mounted on the instrument panel. I have not made up my mind yet. I am
not
sure what engine I will use. I am building a Glasair 1, so I am open to
suggestions.
Lisa Marie
Tedd McHenry wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> I have mixed feelings about auto engine control systems. On the one hand, they
> are very reliable and provide very accurate engine control. On the other hand,
> they can lead to sudden engine stoppage without warning.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Ok, Scott, frame of knowledge reference established. You are right about
EFI being the way to go. 9/10 of all rotaries flying (that I am aware of )
are using EFI. You need one with a mixture control. There are at least 3-4
EFI systems you can buy that works for the rotary, but the one I think
stands heads and shoulders above the rest has two redundant CPUs and sensor
set ups. If one fails, simply throw a switch and you are flying on the
other system - AND it runs under $1000.
I had used a HALTECH after market system and flew my first 60 hours on it.
Then it failed (fortunately on the ground) so I switched to the one
mentioned above with two systems for redundancy.
Ed Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: new rotary engine
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> Am quite familiar with the Rotary. Had (years ago) a road race RX-2 with
> 13B, 1/4 mile, 13.7 @ 110. Did the engine work myself. The only reason I
> mentioned the computer is that today. the only way to get good HP is with
> one.........At least Im pretty sure of that after talking to the local hot
> rod shop about building a V6 for the RV.
>
>
> At 06:56 PM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> >Not necessairly, Scott. The 13B model that is commonly used in aircraft
> >today is only rated at 146HP in the automobile, but will produce 160HP
with
> >almost no changes except to remove some of the emission restrictive
> >features. With a street port job and a free intake several have produced
> >over 180 HP reliably. The wide torque range necessary for an automobile
is
> >not needed for an aircraft (particularly the low rpm torque), so that
frees
> >you up to consider only the airflow needs at the higher rpms (and of
course
> >that is where the most power is produced).
> >
> >We will have to wait until we get our hands on one of the new engines.
> >However, 250 HP at the same weight as today's 13B will make a big
> >difference! Heck, even if it only produced 225HP without a turbo that
would
> >be a big advantage. But of course, if you are going to produce 250 HP
your
> >fuel burn is going to go way up (even with the 20% better fuel
efficiency).
> >The Renese has some new features that contribute to this better fuel
economy
> >which might not compatible with aircraft use, but we will need to get our
> >hands on one to find out.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> ><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >>
> >> I imagine it will only put out max power with the factory engine
> >management
> >> system intact?
> >>
> >>
> >> At 12:25 PM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> ><eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >> >
> >> > I think we can count on it, Mark. Mazda does not appear to have
misled
> >on
> >> >engine performance in the past (at least on the rotary). The actually
> >fuel
> >> >burn of the current rotary is slightly better than an air cooled
aircraft
> >> >engine in some regimes of operation, but not as good as a good auto
> >piston
> >> >engine. But, now with the new engine it will do considerably better.
> >> >
> >> >Good idea about the kids {:>). Actually, I have already found a
source
> >for
> >> >a brand new crated Renese engine at around $6000 from Australia (plus
> >> >shipping). But, since my current rotary is doing well, I can't really
> >> >justify (to my wife at least) popping that much for the new one at
this
> >> >time -now, if I won the lottery {:>)
> >> >
> >> >Ed Anderson
> >> >RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
> >> >Matthews, NC
> >> >eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Mark A. Wood"
<Mark.Wood@uvm.edu>
> >> >>
> >> >> It is nice to see something like this that isn't in the to good
to
> >> >> be true column. As I have been watching the rotary engine to
airplane
> >> >> connection, the only bad point of the 13B was the high fuel burn
> >> >> compared to pistons. Now that will not be an issue.
> >> >> I don't know if everyone who wants one of these engines will want
> >> >> to wait for someone to get rear ended. Do you think we could find a
> >> >> handfull of kids to buy the cars, insure them and then go have a
> >> >> demolition derby with them???
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Scott Bilinski
> >> Eng dept 305
> >> Phone (858) 657-2536
> >> Pager (858) 502-5190
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic engine control |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Good point, Tedd.
In fact there were several auto engine failures where folks were using
the auto EFI system that turned out were caused by a "safety" feature in the
auto cpu. It monitored engine temperatures and if it decided the engine was
overheating and possible going to cause damage, it shut the engine off to
save it. Well, pulling over to the edge of the road is one thing, in an
aircraft a diffierent matter altogether. Some of the ignition systems did
also not take kindly to the heavy load imposed by high RPM loads hour after
hour with no chance to cool down.
I am a electrical engineer (or at least was many years ago) and I agree
that electronic systems frequently do not give you any sign of failure (like
metal in your oil) before expiring. That is why I fly with an EFI system
that has two CPUs and sensor sets. If one set fails, you flip a switch. I
also fly with two electric fuel pumps - again, one as back up. Ditto for the
batteries. The rotary already comes with a redundant ignition system.
These don't add a lot of $$ and make me feel a bit more secure. But, its
certainly not for everyone.
Ed
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Electronic engine control
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> I have mixed feelings about auto engine control systems. On the one hand,
they
> are very reliable and provide very accurate engine control. On the other
hand,
> they can lead to sudden engine stoppage without warning.
>
> My 1985 VW Jetta simply refused to start one day when the ignition module
died.
> It had about 200,000 km on it at the time. My 1990 Toyota Corolla died
while
> cruising down the road one day when the combined distributor-coil unit
died, at
> about 280,000 km. In both cases there were no symptoms (that I noticed)
prior
> to the failure.
>
> They were both pretty old, in aircraft terms. At an average speed of 50
km/h
> the Jetta would have had 4,000 hours on the clock and the Toyota about
5,600
> hours. Still, the fact that they were sudden, catastrophic (in aviation
terms)
> failures is disconcerting.
>
> My experience in reliability analysis is in mechanical systems, not
electronic.
> However, my understanding is that electronic failures tend to be random,
i.e.
> the probability of failure is fairly constant throughout the service life,
as
> opposed to mechanical failures where the probability typcially increases
with
> time. This suggests that the fact that these components will be used for
fewer
> hours in an aircraft application doesn't necessarily reduce the
probability of
> failure, per hour of flight.
>
> ---
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: new rotary engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: new rotary engine
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> Am quite familiar with the Rotary. Had (years ago) a road race RX-2 with
> 13B, 1/4 mile, 13.7 @ 110. Did the engine work myself. The only reason I
> mentioned the computer is that today. the only way to get good HP is with
> one.........At least Im pretty sure of that after talking to the local hot
> rod shop about building a V6 for the RV.
>
Scott, I make engine controllers for the 13B Mazda rotary that will be
compatible with the new Renesis engine. They are designed from the ground
up for aircraft applications so they don't need O2 sensors (run on 100LL OK)
and have a builtin backup controller.
Tracy Crook
tcrook@rotaryaviation.com
www.rotaryaviation.com
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic engine control |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
I agree Tedd. That is why the EC2 engine controller that I build has a
backup controller built in. Electronics can fail unexpectedly and without
warning but the chances of two computers dying at the same moment is pretty
remote.
Tracy Crook
tcrook@rotaryaviation.com
www.rotaryaviation.com
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> I have mixed feelings about auto engine control systems. On the one hand,
they
> are very reliable and provide very accurate engine control. On the other
hand,
> they can lead to sudden engine stoppage without warning.
>
> My 1985 VW Jetta simply refused to start one day when the ignition module
died.
> It had about 200,000 km on it at the time. My 1990 Toyota Corolla died
while
> cruising down the road one day when the combined distributor-coil unit
died, at
> about 280,000 km. In both cases there were no symptoms (that I noticed)
prior
> to the failure.
>
> They were both pretty old, in aircraft terms. At an average speed of 50
km/h
> the Jetta would have had 4,000 hours on the clock and the Toyota about
5,600
> hours. Still, the fact that they were sudden, catastrophic (in aviation
terms)
> failures is disconcerting.
>
> My experience in reliability analysis is in mechanical systems, not
electronic.
> However, my understanding is that electronic failures tend to be random,
i.e.
> the probability of failure is fairly constant throughout the service life,
as
> opposed to mechanical failures where the probability typcially increases
with
> time. This suggests that the fact that these components will be used for
fewer
> hours in an aircraft application doesn't necessarily reduce the
probability of
> failure, per hour of flight.
>
> ---
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | IO360...what's it worth? |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tom" <tomrv8@gvtc.com>
I have a friend who had his homebuilt damaged (while parked inside a
hangar), by microburst winds, which blew the doors off the hangar and
shuffled the planes around inside.
He is considering parting out the plane, and wants to know a reasonable
price to ask for his engine/ prop combination (which was not damaged)
IO360A1A 200HP
Approximately 700 hours since new
Rajay turbo-normalizer
Hartzell prop (overhauled 99') HC-C2YK-1B Blades-7666 A-2
Airwolf remote filter
Bendix mags
Thanks,
Tom
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lycoming IO-540-K Wanted for Rebuild |
--> Engines-List message posted by: ckohn <ckohn@cek.com>
I am finishing the airframe of a Velocity XL-RG and have started looking
for an engine. The Mazda 13B sounds interesting but I am looking for
over 300 Hp. That puts me in the IO-540 range, blue printed, ported,
10:1 compression and electronic ignition and fuel management, at least
these are my thoughts.
Now I need an engine to rebuild. If anyone knows of any that might be
available, I sure would be interested.
I enjoy the voicing of opinions here. Some good ideas and contacts.
Regards,
Carl
--
Carl E. Kohn
(416)931-1508
(416)231-8764 (fax)
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|