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

Group, keep me honest here, but it is my understanding that one of the
reasons the rotary runs hot at the turbo junction or exhaust port is that
incomplete combustion has occurred in the ignition chamber.  If this isthe
case, wouldn't a more complete burn reduce the heat at that junction?
Regards, Gordon

My wish list is small.  First Turbo compound rotary engine.  Second, a real
functioning muffler, durable, noise reducing and providing high HP output.
Marc Joseph

Lower fuel consumption through turbo compound and or other means is a high
priority. Cheers, Brian

My vote is to eliminate fuels altogether:)
Doug in Japan

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.
David Leonard

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

As an LSA builder wishing to max out the performance envelop we need a
light
rotary engine/PSRU combination with at least 140hp. Regards, Dan F

Part of my wish list would be replumb the coolant circuits so there are2
independent systems. The passages would alternate between the 2
 systems
to minimize over heating during the limp back home on one. -dave

 Verdict:

 5 votes for turbo-compound
 2 votes for lighter, 100-140 hp engine
 1-2 votes for a new constant-speed PSRU

 1 vote for a new dynafocal mount accessory plate
 1 vote for developing more complete combustion
 1 vote for a thoroughly engineered turbo installation
 1 vote for a really effective and reliable muffler
 1 vote for a redundant cooling system
 1 vote for p-porting

 0 votes for a perfected induction manifold
 0 votes for direct-injection stratification
 0 votes for 20B-MSP midblock and crank
 0 votes for 26B midblocks and crank
 0 votes for lighter engine blocks
 0 votes for an improved ECU unit
 0 votes for a high-energy ignition
 0 votes for an aerobatic dry sump
 0 votes for low-compression MSP turbo rotors
 0 votes for lighter rotors
 0 votes for a FWF package

 Ok,

 First priority seems to be to develop a real, operational turbo-compound
 unit.
 Rotrex 10:1 friction drive, connected to compressor side axle on a
 commercial turbo unit?
 We should look how far we can get with them. hardware costs couple of
 thousand USD...

 I promise to look at this, at least calculate the probable power
 recovery using off-the-shelf turbines.


 Second priority is to develop a new, lighter-than-13b engine for LSA and
 european ultralight market, currently dominated by rotax 912-914.
 Wankel AG has a 2x407cc 75hp unit, that could be just right if converted
 to oil cooling? http://www.wankel-ag.de/seite1_e.html

 Third priority seems to be the constant-speed PSRU à la mistral.
 Can be done, not rocket science. Reliable A357 castings is the key.
 I am going to design and proto this anyway. This is important for me,
 because of the expected, huge, learning experience :p
 btw: You don't seem to think much of IVOprop, do you?
 http://www.ivoprop.com/inflightmagnumodel.htm


 I think all these 20 development projects are very much worthwhile, but
 on what order?

 It seems that most of you are quite happy with tracy's offerings and
 13B/MSP power and installed weight - Except on applications requiring
 lighter weight, higher power, or when seeking better cruise speed at
 altitude (CS+Turbo).

 Question:
 I know that Lancairs have been flying IFR for years, but they have
 certified engines, props and instruments.

 According to FAA rules, can rotary engined experimental with IFR
 instruments and IFR certified CS prop be registered as IFR-certified, or
 "IFR approved" ?

 Or should the engine be also IFR certified to start with, like eg.
 IO-360? This has some connections to PSRU project...

 Please comment. Did I forgot something?

 Cheers,
 Petri

So, now, please gentlemen, what components/assemblies would
 experimental
aircraft builder mostly need from us rotary people? - First, foremost, and
then nice-to-have... Petri




 1. A reliable, low cost fuel injection controller.
 2. A reliable low cost igniton system, multi-spark if possible, but
 mostly
 reliable and low cost.


 Question, what is an "IFR certified" powerplant or prop?

 C. Smith



There is no IFR certification by the FAA of experimental aircraft. The
standard operating limitations issued by the FAA for Experimental (Amateur
Built) specify Day VFR operation "unless equipped for night VFR and/or IFR
in accordance with FAR section 91.205.  The representative of the
Administrator issuing the Airworthiness Certificate and accompanying
Operating Limitations may add any other limitations they feel necessaryfor
safety, so it would be prudent to discuss this issue with the persons you
consider to employ for certification of your airplane. Choose a DAR whois
not antagonistic towards rotary power. Both my IO-470 powered RV-8 and my
Subaru-powered (all-electric, fuel injected) RV-6 have the preceding
language permitting IFR if equipped per Part 91.

Victor Roberts

--------------------------------------
1) Integrated bell housing, 2 motor mounts on it, and cs hydraulic PSRU.
Reuse existing Mazda bell housings (mt and at) and put most gearing behind
the new front plate. Accommodations for separate oiling system, cooler and
cs pump somewhere. Look at Mistral's (but forget the extra
alternator/belt!).
2. rear motor mount plate a la Mistral will all accessories accommodated,-
water pump, alt, maybe prop gov, etc to fit normal dynafocal motor mounts
currently in use for piston engines.
Marc Wiese

The rear plate is not a good idea as it puts stress on the engine blockit
is
not designed to take. Mistral redesigns every part of the engine including
the rotor housing to take this stress. Not practical for us to do that.

Paul Lamar.

Petri,

I've heard of "Certified engines" but never an "IFR Certified
engine".  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the FAA doesn't specify that
you must have a certified engine and/or prop to fly IFR, only that the a/c
must all the equipment listed in FAR 91.205 and have equipment suitable for
ground-based navigation.  The radios don't have to be TSO'd, but they must
meet the same performance specs as the TSO'd equipment, so most people take
the easy road and install certified radios.

The EAA has addressed this question on numerous occasions.  They don't even
mention the engine/prop in the article, only nav equipment.

Bottom line for me is do I feel comfortable flying IFR behind an
experimental engine/prop?

Mark S.