BTW did anybody read the March Kitplanes article Meredith Effect Fact or
Fiction?
Kitplanes is doing a ten times better job than EAA Sport Aviation mag.
Can anybody that has my book tell me the key facts the author is missing
? :)
Paul Lamar
I read the article... but I have not bought your book yet
ATP Bill
What did you think of the article? Did it answer all of your
questions ( if any) :)
Paul Lamar
No it did not answer all my questions. ..I was somewhat disappointed in
the article. ..
.looking for more science to use in making decisions
ATP Bill
You will get it in my book Bill :)
Paul Lamar
Dear Paul,
The article "hit the spot" for me. Anyone that has the slightest
interest in "alternative" power for aircraft would certainly want to
know more. Whether anymore "science" was required is debatable.
I have been watching developments of various power plants, and read many
articles that have been written by individuals who have fitted (or
failed to fit) an alternative engine in their aircraft. The only uint
that seems to have had some success is William Wynne with the corvair
engine. I attended his "college" at Leesburg last year, which was very
useful. The output is not sufficient for my needs but I wanted to see
how the "college" concept worked. I believe that his approach and his
enthusiasm has resulted in a very high percentage of successful completions.
I am very interested in building an aircraft (Glasair ll/lll) with a
rotary engine, but I have neither the engineering background nor the
time for such a project with the resources that seem to be available .
On the face of it seems that there are several individuals working on
projects (some of which exchange information) constantly re-inventing
the wheel.
I am not suggesting that I am so inept or lazy that I just want to "walk
into a shop" or contract a company to produce a FWD solution. I am well
capable of maintaining my own aircraft and have rebuilt several
conventional auto engines, but from what I have been able to glean, the
Wankel, although simple in concept does present real challenges when
adapted to an aircraft.
I have just watched your 2009 Wankle Ag interview on youtube.com
<http://youtube.com> <http://youtube.com> <http://youtube.com>
<http://youtube.com>. I see that he has a "double engine" driving a
single shaft. Has anyone tried this configuration with say, 150
hp/engine, total 300 hp? It would give almost the security of a twin
engine aircraft without the assymetric problems. Just a thought. I don't
have dimensions or weights so it may well be totally impractical.
Apart from Tracy Crook's book, and your book are there any more
publications directly related to rotary engines in aircraft?
Now that Tracy Crook has "retired" who is the "go-to" source for
parts/components - fuel injection, manifolds, radiators, psru etc. etc
required to convert for example a 13 or 20 series engine?
I know that you are off to Europe soon, and as I will not be back in the
US until the beginning of March, so an early reply is not needed.
I am enjoying reading the posts, although many are way above my pay scale.
Enjoy Europe
Rgds
Mike Arthur
Do you have my book? The Kit planes article system will not cool a rotary.
There is a lot missing in the article.
The ACRE NL web site is more than a book if you read it all :)
There is very little that is not covered.
Paul Lamar
The rotary is less of a problem than converting a recip engine for
aircraft use. The basic engine assembly is bullet proof if assembled
with due care. Paul's recommendations regarding rotor housing seals from
Creavy, and his cooling system book along with the web site information
are to be paid attention to. P-port and mount parts from Jeff, EFI via
Motec and Paul's new ignition and universal mount will get you in the
ball park. Look around for a used or Tracy PSRU. 250HP to 300HP
depending on the PSRU ratio. The cost for the install will be less than
a new Lycosaur. If you fret about the fuel system you could mount an
extra fuel pump, ECU and injectors to A/B and be able to switch if a
problem comes up.
Dale Davies
I would have to get your book out and re read it. That said, the
radiator size and multiple row design is a problem for one. Better to
use one core radiator the same size as if you stretched out the 2 or 3
rows into one row. Mount it at an angle to keep frontal area down and be
careful with the divergence before and convergence after the radiator to
prevent turbulence. I would also round the inlet corners to prevent
turbulence at the corners developing. I would expect a cross counter
flow radiator about 1/2 the "frontal area" would increase the efficiency
more with a smaller inlet area.
How is my grade on this?
Dale Davies
"radiator size and multiple row design"
What kind of problem?
We have had good luck with the Dodge Neon rads.
Two back to back in the counter cross flow configuration.
Mounting it at a angle is essential for proper diffuser operation.
The ideal heat exchangers is infinite frontal area with zero thickness.
Aerodynamic drag is zero and heat transfer from the metal to the air is
infinite
as is heat transfer from the liquid coolant to the metal.
Paul Lamar
I was responding to your question "can anybody with your book comment on
what the Meredith Effect author missed". His radiator appears to be a 2
or 3 row design. So I assume I am correct with using a thinner rad with
larger frontal area angled and with diffusers to slow the air going
through the rad to reduce drag.
Dale Davies
Yes.
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
You Tube
http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas
Copyright 1998-2015 All world wide rights reserved.