>
    >          John and his partner have been working on this for a
   long time.
    >          Something like
    >          20 years. Just recently did they get it flying. The
   first thing
    >     that
    >          happened was they lost an apex seal. Probably due to
   detonation.
    >          They over hauled the engine and then the turbo let go.
   Nothing
    >     new here
    >          as that is probably about the 8th 2nd gen turbo to let
   go. The
    >     turbo
    >          caught fire when it failed. Fortunately not a lot of
   damage and
    >     John
    >          was able
    >          to glide to a safe landing back at Camarillo. The turbo
   is being
    >          modified
    >          to Dave Leonards spec. Hopefully we will get a report
   after his
    >     5000
    >          to 6000
    >          mile trip.
    >
    >          I was unaware they were flying. The last time I saw the
    >     airplane was
    >          about five or six years
    >          ago. If I had known about it I could have warned them
   about the
    >          detonation
    >          and the 2nd gen turbo. You MUST monitor the intake
   charge air
    >          temperature and keep
    >          it below 140 F or you WILL get detonation sooner rather than
    > later.
    >          We have known about and discussed  the 2nd gen turbo
   problems
    >     for at
    >          least two years
    >          and maybe three.
    >
    >          The PSRU is a home made belt unit built according to
   Blanton's
    >          plans. The ratio
    >          is 2:1 so they need a lot of boost to get the HP. They
   had the
    >     large
    >          pulley custom
    >          made by a broach shop in LA.
    >
    >          They are running 50 inches Hg MAP for take off and 45
   inches of
    >          HG  MAP for climb
    >          out.  Max rpm for climb out is 4500.  Static engine RPM
   is 5100
    >     RPM.
    >          The turbo is working hard.  Cruise is 4000 RPM with 42
   inches
    >     of Hg.
    >          TAS is 160 MPH. Fuel burn on take off and climb out is
   about
    >     7.5 gallons
    >          an hour extrapolated from the last short trip when the turbo
    > failed
    >          so they are not making very much power despite the high
   manifold
    >          pressure. The manifold itself is stock without the mass
   air flow
    >          sensor. Just the stock TB. You can get away with that if you
    >     use a belt
    >          drive as the engine sits lower. They are using Tracy's
   EFI unit
    >     instead
    >          of the stock computer.
    >
    >          During prior cruise flights they were burning 4.6 to 5.0
    >     gallons and
    >          hour.
    >          More about the cooling system shortly.
    >
    >          Did I get all this right John?
    >
    >          Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
    >
    >
    >
    >     Courageous, but it seems that people insist on working too
   hard on
    >     things that they don't need to and skip taking care of some
   important
    >     stuff.  Buy the PSRU.  Build (or buy) a P-Port.  _Everyone's_
   time is
    >     worth something.
    >
    >     I think all new installs need to run on a test stand at high
   power
    >     settings - takeoff power - for at least 50 hours .  If not a
   test
    > stand,
    >     on the chained down airplane with fan cooling.  People make
   too many
    >     rosey assumptions about how much better things will go once
   there's
    >     slipstream cooling air through the system.  I'd make
   exceptions to
    > this
    >     if an install is a _direct_ copy of another which already works
    >     reliably.  In that case, only spend 25 hours on the
   stand.  There are
    > no
    >     direct copies!!  Hah.  :)  Lots of useful stuff will be
   learned in the
    >     process of making it run well on the ground.  It's a tough
   pill to
    >     swallow because lots of builders really want to be fliers
   instead.
    >
    >     I don't think they're undergeared so much as
   overpropped.  It's not
    > all
    >     that unusual for a LongEz to cruise with the prop at
   3000RPM.  They
    >     aren't supposed to have props with diameter greater than 62"
   (though
    >     some aircraft do), so I think 3000RPM is no big deal, and
   that would
    >     allow a 6000RPM engine speed.  They need less pitch, less
   diameter,
    >     and/or a better prop airfoil.  Do these guys have any other EZ
    >     experience?  Oh wait, are they running an IVO or Warp drive -
   I think
    > I
    >     can see it in one of the pics.  How fast are they allowed to
   turn?
    > And
    >     at what RPM does that blade get really inefficient?
    >
    >
    >     Matt-
    >
    >     I think you are being a bit hard on them Matt. A lot of these
    > decisions
    >     were made over ten years ago. Probably before one could buy a
   PSRU
    >     off the
    >     shelf. These guys are true rotary engine pioneers along with Yvon
    >     Cournoyer
    >     and Ken Welter with a similar belt drive PSRU's. We have come
   a long
    >     way since
    >     1997. Turbo chargers have advantages at high altitude (12K to
   14K)
    >     cruise.
    >
    >     Here is the cooling stuff. The original configuration was a
   real thick
    >     (5 or 6 inches) custom rad core in the nose. I did not think it
    >     would work when
    >     I first saw it and of course it did not work. They adopted
   the super
    >     simple, super
    >     quick under the fuse mounted  heat exchanger with Kays &
   London wedge
    >     shaped diffuser. Works like a charm. Super slick cowl. So far
   water
    > temp
    >     is 205 F take off and 185 F cruise.
    >
    >     Oil cooling in the nose is two Earl's supply oil coolers back to
    >     back in the
    >     cross counter flow configuration. In other words the back cooler
    >     gets the
    >     hot oil first. Oil temp is 205 F on take off and climb out
   and 192 F
    >     in cruise.
    >     --
    >     Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
    >
    >
    > Yeah Paul,  you're right..  I was at work when I wrote that.  I still
    > think they are over-propped..
    >
    >
    > Matt-
    >
    > They could be. We will see when they get the new turbo charger.
    > One bit of evidence against that is the 5100 static RPM.
    >
    > Perry Mick, what is your static RPM again? I think the Andrich
   turbo Long
    > EZ MPG
    > might work out to be exceptional. It is showing some signs of that
    > already.
    > John and I discussed the reasons for the new 16B. I think we both
   agree
    > Mazda
    > made it larger with more torque so they could raise the RX8 axle
   ratio and
    > cut the 80 MPH cruise RPM to reduce engine friction. What would
   be ideal
    > of
    > course is a constant speed prop.
    >
    > --
    > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


   I watch this user group newsletter for information and
   encouragement.  I go
   to the seminars at Oshkosh, Sun n Fun, and Copperstate.   I wonder
   how many
   people are scared away from using a rotary watching other people being
   bantered for their efforts.

   Rick Irwin

   That is the down side. The up side is this newsletter can save people
   from making the same mistakes over and over again. However some people
   don't listen or don't want to listen.
   --
   Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


If Rick's talking about me, I only hope no one actually takes me that
seriously.  :o


Matt-



The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2007 All world wide rights reserved.