Bob Romanko wrote:

Paul:

Thanks for the V6-STOL image.  Nice pic.  I guess my
position with the V6-STOL is if I take a Tri-Pacer with
a 160HP Lycoming it will easily cruise at 120.  Take the
same plane, extend the fuselage and the wings, add about
another 50HP with a Ford V6 and I can easily believe the
120 knot cruise claim.  The fuel consumption on the
other hand is an entirely different story.  Too many
factors for this feeble little A&P/Computer Geek to
figure out to get it anywhere close to exact!  I would
guess closer to 10 gph.

Nay! Its just arithmetic. GPH X 6 / 0.43 = HP

The point four three number is from the last billion piston
internal combustion engines built over the last 100 years.
Six is the weight of gasoline per gallon.

10 GPH is about 140 HP. PL

 

The designer of the Bearhawk is Bob Barrows, and he
lives in Fincastle, Virginia, about two hours from me here
in sunny Charlottesville.  He's also an A&P and runs an
overhaul shop, while designing and building an excellent
taildragger (Bearhawk) in his spare time.  I just spoke
with him yesterday about the possibility of coming up to
a future local EAA chapter fly in.

Bob seems to be pretty committed to Lycoming engines, but
has an open mind to other engine options.  He doesn't have
a personal email, and I doubt if he ever will.  They just
got their fax machine at the shop about two years ago!  I
haven't really talked to Bob much about the rotary.  He's
willing to sell me a freshly overhauled O-360 for $12,000.
To me, that's cheap.  The other option is a big 'ol
Continental.  The airframe can take up to 400 pounds FWF.
Not bad.  I really like the rotary, and have been fascinated
with the engine since I first saw one as a young pup.  For
the life of me, I can't understand why by this time every
car out there isn't running a rotary.  I guess we're out of
the technical realm and into the political/economical area!

I was given an engine by the local community college.  It's
locked up, and I haven't even had the chance to look at it
yet.  I just took it off of their hands to have one to tear
apart and figure out.  In fact, I don't even know how to
tell if it's a 12A or 13B.  I know absolutely nothing about
the history of this particular engine, other than the fact
it's been laying in the college's engine shop for over
three years (grin).

As far as aircraft use goes, I still have this hump I have
to get over that cooling these things is more of a hassle
than I may be willing to handle.  Has anyone yet really
NAILED cooling down to where the levels are acceptable under
all conditions aloft and on the ground?  Are Tracy's cooling
concerns behind him?  Some of the discussions lately are
leading me to believe we're cooling the space shuttle instead
of the little 'ol rag-and-tube 4-seater I'm planning on
building (grin).

Thanks again for all your efforts.

Bob Romanko

Don't let all this talk discourge you. We are basicly trying
to minimise the drag so we can go 250 MPH. If you are flying
low and slow with a rag wing don't worry about it. Plenty
of room in the aft fuselage for a big rad just like the guys
with the V6 STOL. I would put the intakes on the sides however
as far forward and as high as I could... to take advantage
of the high pressure under the wing. No problems letting the air
come out under the stab.

BTW Tracy has a quick and dirty solution. He sprays cold water on 
the rad when he is balked at taking off. Get his book and decide.

"Tracy 2 rws@altavista.net" <rws@altavista.net

PL
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org