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.

Paul,
Can you verify the tooth count on the pulleys? If it is 2:1, boy does he
need more gear.... a smaller lower gear can be done using a couple of flat
idler pulleys to force more engagement around the pulley. Belt path ends up
looking like a light bulb in profile.
Larry


That is a great idea Larry. I had not thought of that. The 3:1 belt drive large pulley
works out to be too large increasing the frontal area and the prop to e-shaft
spacing. The idlers/smaller drive pulley will help those problems as well and
cut the cost of the big pulley in the bargain. Cheap to implement as well
compared to all the other alternatives. I am going on what John said and
it sure looks like 2:1.

How's the bell housing coming?