>"Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true" ;)
    >
    >So, now, please gentlemen, what components/assemblies would
   experimental
    >aircraft builder mostly need from us rotary people? - First, foremost,
    >and then nice-to-have...
    >This subject somewhat bloated to kind of "State of the Union"... So
    >please bear with me...
    >
    >Why to ask?
    >Immediate Selfish reasons ;) I have to decide a subject for my thesis
    >work. And besides, there's been so much attention to details that i'm
    >not sure of the current big picture, and besides, this is
   interesting ;)
    >
    >Why to answer?
    >I figured that perhaps i could do something that's both useful and
    >interesting, instead of eg. those wonderful pulp pump dynamics... and,
    >besides, this should be interesting...
    >
    >SO, would you have..
    >
    >Better PSRU?
    >One with provision for constant-speed prop? Lighter? Neater?
   Cheaper? Or
    >will just having a new kind of bell housing do fine?
    >
    >Better Fuel Injection/ECU?
    >Is Tracy's ECN good enough, or is there still something that needs
    >attention?
    >
    >Better induction manifold?
    >Why? Original too clumsy/heavy? For both 13B and Renesis?
    >
    >Dry sump?
    >Now would that make aerobatic chaps happy?
    >
    >Backplate?
    >A là Mistral? How much would this make difference on engine
   mounting
    >ease/weight and on driving accessories?
    >
    >Firewall-forward kits?
    >No-brainer. Of course :) But for what kitplanes?
    >RV-8, Lancair Super II and CH-801 as starters? Paul and Jerry have
   made
    >a fine work with the mounts, and there's been plans for ducting
   also...
    >but can we say that it is a FWF kit yet?
    >
    >Turbos that keep together?
    >How bad is the rotary+turbo issue, really? Some fellas are flying with
    >'em all the time, so problem solved?
    >
    >New midblock to get 3-rotor engines easily?
    >20B's rarifying to extinction? How about just biting the bullet and
    >making a usable midblock to get 3-rotor engines again? Why? To have
    >RV-10, Glasair III and Lancairs on menu again!
    >And then the salient point: for 13B or for Renesis blocks?
    >
    >
    >Turbine-performance featherweight 4-rotor Hi-rev P-port compound
    >intercooler wonders that consume almost nothing and cost next to
    >nothing? And airframe to match to break Every FAI record Ever made!!
    >
    >Sure!
    >Why?
    >Becuse We Can!!!
    >
    >But, um, what things should be done first?
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Petri

    >My vote is turbo compound for lower fuel burn.
    >
    >Paul Lamar

   What I want is a reliable, inexpensive conversion kit for the 13B to a
   single-rotor, with adapter plates to mount it to the Notax 2-stroke
   mount and Provision 8 gearboxes -- in other words, to yank the 2-stroke
   out from between the mount and PSRU.

   Keith

   My input,
   A low cost, light weight PSRU with plenty of HP headroom that can handle
   a CS prop by design. The Mistral design looks great but I've been told
   that they don't want to sell parts anymore. Tracy's is low cost but
   lacks any provision for  Hyd CS. After taht I would be interested in
   turbocompound.
   Bill Jepson



My vote would be for a backplate (similar to Mistrals) because it solves
several major issues in one fell swoop.  Primarily, it solves the engine
mount issue for almost all airframe designs with one product.  Making my
engine mount was the single most difficult aspect of my project.  The
problem with making engine mounts is that each one is very time
consuming and you have to make a jig for each different airframe type.
Even then there are issues with hole matching etc.   Since most kits
already come with a dynafocal engine mount, having a well-made rear
cover (front cover in the car) solves the issue for all different
airframes with one component.  It could also be designed so that it will
work with all 13B and 20B based cores, probably easy modifications for
the 16B.  Single product, universal applicability, per-unit costs go way
down with higher volume, that is the ticket to success in the market.

A well designed front cover should also address other major issues such
as water pump housing size and alternator mounting.  Both of those were
major headaches for me.  Between my engine mount, water pump housing,
and alternator mounting, I spent in excess of $3000 and a couple hundred
hours of my time.  You could sell a front cover for probably less than
$2000 each with low volume.  Sounds like a lot until you realize what
you would be providing in return/savings.

Want to get fancy? (I do not recommend getting fancy - just throwing out
ideas)  How about gear driven water pump and alternator?  Perhaps
compatibility with a supercharger?

We already have at least 2 excellent PSRU's, several good options for
EFI, and turbochargers/superchargers that will work if only chosen well
and installed well.  Turbocompounding would be a nice touch, but is a
tough nut to crack and is not necessary for most homebuilders who just
want to get in the air as cheaply and easily as possible.

Hyd C/S prop capability is not a necessity for getting into the air
either.  Believe me, f.p. props work fine, same top airspeed as C/S.
They also weigh much less and cost much much less.  No expensive
maintenance.  They really are under rated.  But if you really must have
C/S capability go electric.  That will cost about the same as a hyd C/S
prop + hyd capable PSRU (i.e. hyd prop/gov is $6.5k, elec is $9.5k and a
hyd capable PSRU is going to cost about $3k more than Tracys RD-1C).

Rear cover all the way!