Ben Baltrusaitis wrote:

Here is an excellent example of the plane I am building with an IO-540

installed.

(I hope mine turns out half as pretty!) Do you
think a Renesis, the new VAM exhaust, and Tracy's PSRU will improve
the air on the nose and the weight under the cowl to have
better performance than the Lycoming with 300hp?

BTW, it seems every day I am amazed beyond belief at the engineering

knowledge available here!

Thanks!
Ben

I think you will need a three rotor for something like that.
You might wind up with a bit less weight than the IO-540.

    My Starduster performs fine with a 180 hp Lyc. Since weight is a major
consideration
in homebuilt aerobatic airplanes wouldn't a turbo 2 rotor provide
performance without the
extra weight? There is plenty of space available under the cowling to route
the exhaust
away from the engine.
                          -  Gordon Haggard

Aerobatic airplanes are real hard on turbos for oil drain back reasons.
Plus you are on and off the power so engine response might be an issue.

Nobody that I know of has used a rotary for sustained inverted flight
so you would be on the bleeding edge there.

Tracy's new gear box should be OK with a wood prop. Usually aerobatic
airplanes use constant speed props for good vertical penetration.
Unless you are willing to use an electric $10,000 Hoffman or MT you will
have difficulty adapting a hydraulic constant speed prop.

Paul Lamar
 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.