X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Ernesto Sanchez wrote:

Yes in one sense that is true. But volumetric eff. is based on
everything being standard density. If you correct the volume
to standard density than the volumetric eff. of a turbo is
much higher than a NA engine. HP consumed by the turbo is
ignored of course.

Paul Lamar

I was going to build a 4 port NA engine but I like the idea of a turbo for
increased VE and altitude performance.  What would be the difference (# of
fuel per hour) between a 200 hp NA motor and a 200 hp Turbo??  How much HP
does the turbo use? 

Very good question. I don't know but I'll bet it will be some. PL

I like the manifold (to bolt the turbo onto the engine)
you guys came up with.  If I go with the turbo I would use one.

    On the NACA vs P-51 scoop debate:  I had already thought about mounting
the radiator under the motor.  On my canard (E-Racer), I measured everything
(thrust line, firewall, engine) and I could get everything to fit with a
NACA but it would be tight.  The NACA works better if you have an area
inside to allow the air to expand (so I was told).  I would not have much
space under the radiator using the NACA intake for the air to turn.  More
drag? If you look at the current trend in canard cooling (Mike Meville,
Berkut) they are getting rid of the NACA's for cooling and using small
scoops.  They even claim an increase in speed.  Less internal cooling drag
maybe??

    I'm planning a P-51 scoop for now.  More room for the air expand and
turn into my radiator and oil cooler.  I'm also going to experiment with the
exhaust to help extract the air out of the cowl.
Thanks for the great rotary forum Paul.

Ernesto Sanchez
E-Racer #319
es12043@utech.net

The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

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